EBSCOhost https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=304723fa-e197-44fc-a7...

A Meta-Analysis of the Dark Triad and Work Behavior: A Social Exchange Perspective

By: Ernest H. O'Boyle Jr.

School of Business and Economics, Longwood University;
Donelson R. Forsyth
Jepson School of Leadership Studies, University of Richmond
George C. Banks
Department of Management, Virginia Commonwealth University
Michael A. McDaniel
Department of Management, Virginia Commonwealth University
Acknowledgement: We would like to thank David Wilson and In-Sue Oh for their
thoughtful feedback and Nicole Kim for her assistance in
coding.

Despite positive psychology's emphasis on human strengths and virtues, studies of

counterproductive work behavior (CWB), such as employee
theft (Buss, 1993), abusive supervision (Tepper, 2007), leadership derailment
(Hogan & Hogan, 2002), and excessive organizational politicking
(Poon, 2003), attest to the darker side of human nature. Optimism, integrity, and
self-authenticity may predict health and happiness, but
personality traits such as Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy may
predict misbehavior. Paulhus and Williams (2002) named these
three traits the Dark Triad (DT), for “individuals with these traits share a
tendency to be callous, selfish, and malevolent in their interpersonal
dealings” (p. 100).

The DT personality traits have been linked empirically to a wide range of negative
outcomes. Machiavellians, for example, are more likely to
take revenge against others (Nathanson, 2008), and they lie more regularly to their
friends (Kashy & DePaulo, 1996). Narcissists, when their
egos are threatened, are often hostile and aggressive, and their romantic
relationships tend to be troubled due to their egocentrism and
infidelity (Miller, Widiger, & Campbell, 2010). Psychopathy is associated with
various forms of criminality, including sexual assault and murder
(Megargee, 2009).

This review examines the DT to determine if this constellation of personality

traits' association with dysfunction in interpersonal relations
extends to organizational contexts. We begin with a conceptual analysis of the DT
that assumes these traits are manifestations of an agentic
but exploitative social strategy that motivates striving for personal goals but
undermines the balance of social exchange essential to smooth
organizational functioning. We then meta-analytically review past empirical studies
of the relation between the DT traits and two forms of work
behavior: job performance and CWB. Whereas much of that work suggests that the DT's
impact is primarily negative, the empirical findings are
far from consistent. For example, some researchers (e.g., Giacalone & Knouse, 1990)
have reported that Machiavellians are more likely to
engage in such CWB as abuse, theft, and sabotage. Other investigators, however,
have found that Machiavellians who are concerned with
maintaining their power in an organization are more conscientious and less likely
to engage in most forms of CWB (Kessler et al., 2010).
Overall, the link between the DT and work behavior is tentative, with a substantial
number of positive, negative, and null findings. We examine
the results of 245 separate samples totaling 43,907 participants to identify
associations across studies and also identify factors that moderate
the strength of those associations. We also examine the degree of overlap among the
DT variables and gauge their combined predictive utility
in explaining work behaviors.

The Dark Triad

Evolutionary analyses of the function of personality suggest that traits emerged in

the “social landscape to which humans have had to adapt”
(Buss, 1991, p. 471) and offer the means by which people gain status, secure their
place within the group, and increase access to mates. Some
individuals solve these problems through prosocial means, such as striving to be
agreeable and conscientious, but others use more individually
agentic, if socially aversive, strategies (Jonason & Webster, 2010).
Machiavellians' beliefs about the gullibility of others and lack of concern for
their rights lead to manipulative behaviors. Narcissists' inflated view of self,
coupled with delusions of grandeur, creates a desire to self-promote
and engage in attention-seeking behaviors. For those high in psychopathy, a
disregard for societal norms leads to antisocial behavior. Paulhus
and Williams (2002) labeled these three traits the DT based on their degree of
social averseness. All three traits contain a degree of
malevolency that directly affects interpersonal behavior.

Machiavellianism
Niccolo Machiavelli's (1532/1950)The Prince is a handbook for those attempting to
seize and retain political power. Drawing on historical
precedent rather than philosophical ideals, he suggested that even a morally
righteous man must make deliberate use of ruthless, amoral, and
deceptive methods when dealing with unscrupulous men. The construct drew the
attention of researchers in psychology and management
when Christie and Geis (1970) published a personality measure based on
Machiavelli's principles. The Machiavellian personality is defined by
three sets of interrelated values: an avowed belief in the effectiveness of
manipulative tactics in dealing with other people (e.g., “Never tell
anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so”), a cynical
view of human nature (e.g., “It is safest to assume that all
people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance”),
and a moral outlook that puts expediency above principle
(e.g., “It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there”). Narrative
reviews of the literature by Fehr, Samson, and Paulhus (1992)

2 von 29 20.06.2023, 09:39

EBSCOhost https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=304723fa-e197-44fc-a7...

and Jones and Paulhus (2009) generally confirmed these characterizations of

Machiavellians, finding that they endorse a negative view of
people and are more likely to make ethically suspect choices (Kish-Gephart,
Harrison, & Treviño, 2010). They think of themselves as skillful
manipulators of others, although their overall emotional intelligence is not as
strong as their self-conception suggests (Dahling, Whitaker, &
Levy, 2009). They are relatively successful in their careers, particularly when
they work in unstructured, less organized settings. As
organizational structure increases, their success tends to decrease. They are not
necessarily disliked by others, but they are not exceptionally
successful when politicking (e.g., Ferris & King, 1996; Ferris et al., 2005). They
are more likely to cheat, lie, and betray others, but they do not
regularly engage in extremely negative forms of antisocial behavior (Jones &
Paulhus, 2009).

Narcissism
Extreme self-aggrandizement is the hallmark of narcissism, which was first
identified by clinicians in their analyses of disordered personalities.
However, personality psychologists consider milder displays of narcissism to be
evidence of a personality type and not necessarily a disorder
(Rhodewalt & Peterson, 2009). In this conceptualization of narcissism, most
individuals, and even organizations (Brown, 1997), possess some
level of narcissism that colors their perceptions and behaviors. Narcissism
includes an inflated view of self; fantasies of control, success, and
admiration; and a desire to have this self-love reinforced by others (Kernberg,
1989; Morf & Rhodenwalt, 2001). One of the most frequently
used measures of narcissism, the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), includes
items pertaining to leadership and dominance (e.g., “I am
going to be a great person”), grandiose exhibitionism (e.g., “I like to be the
center of attention”), and a sense of entitlement (e.g., “I insist on
getting the respect that is due me”; Raskin & Hall, 1979).

Most theorists distinguish between a healthy self-respect and confidence, and

unhealthy, narcissistic self-love. Narcissists exaggerate their
achievements, block criticism, refuse to compromise, and seek out interpersonal and
romantic relationships only with admiring individuals (W.
K. Campbell, 1999; Resick, Whitman, Weingarden, & Hiller, 2009). To others,
narcissists appear arrogant, self-promoting, aggressive, and in
general less likable (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008). Narcissism is also, in some
cases, associated with aggression. The threaten-egotism
hypothesis maintains that narcissists usually dismiss negative feedback, but if
publicly censured or criticized, then they are likely to respond
aggressively (Bushman et al., 2009).

Psychopathy
The third personality trait of the DT, psychopathy, is marked by a lack of concern
for both other people and social regulatory mechanisms,
impulsivity, and a lack of guilt or remorse when their actions harm others.
Interpersonally, they are often skilled impression managers, who are
glib and charismatic. Emotionally shallow, they often adopt parasitic lifestyles,
engaging in a variety of criminal activities to achieve their ends
(Hare & Neumann, 2009). Psychopathy measures such as Lilienfeld and Widows's (2005)
include items related to a person's sense of social
potency (e.g., skill at using charm to avoid the ire of another), impulsive
nonconformity (e.g., questioning of authority figures without good
cause), immunity from stress (e.g., ability to stay calm when others cannot), and
callousness, emotional coldness, and unsentimentality (e.g.,
inability or unwillingness to experience infatuation with another).

Like narcissism, psychopathy was originally considered a clinical disorder

(antisocial personality disorder), but recent work (e.g., Hare, 1991;
Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995) has demonstrated that psychopathy can be
considered a personality trait as well as a disorder.
Psychopathy is associated with such aversive behaviors as academic cheating
(Nathanson, Paulhus, & Williams, 2006b); the use of
exploitative, short-term mating strategies (Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009);
and a preference for violent, explicit, or otherwise antisocial
media (Williams, McAndrew, Learn, Harms, & Paulhus, 2001).

The Dark Triad in the Workplace: A Social Exchange Model

An evolutionary account of the DT stresses its adaptive value in terms of

extracting resources for the individual from the collective. Although
Machiavellians, narcissists, and psychopaths differ in emphasis and style, their
basic strategy is one of apparent and covert exploitation of
conspecifics. In social species such as Homo sapiens, relationship-sustaining
processes—cooperation, reciprocal altruism, compassion, and
the need for inclusion—are evolutionarily stable strategies, but evolution also
favors those who employ more self-serving strategies under
certain conditions.

This consistent violation of the basic assumptions of a fair-exchange relationship

makes social exchange theory a likely framework for
conceptualizing the impact of the DT on work behaviors (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano &
Mitchell, 2005; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Social exchange
theory explains how relationships are initiated and sustained through the reliable
exchange of rewards and the imposition of costs between
individuals. The theory, applied to organizational settings, suggests that
employees work in exchange for direct, concrete rewards such as pay,
goods, and services as well as indirect, socioemotional rewards such as status and
admiration (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). These
exchanges create relationships among employees and employers, which are
strengthened when (a) the rewards are valued ones and any
costs created by the relationships are minimized; (b) exchange partners trust each
other to fulfill their obligations over the long term; (c) the
exchange is judged to be a fair one, with fairness defined primarily by mutual
adherence to the norm of reciprocity; and (d) both parties develop
a psychological commitment to the relationship, as indicated by increased affective
attachment, a sense of loyalty, mutual support, and an
authentic concern for the other's well-being (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).

3 von 29 20.06.2023, 09:39

EBSCOhost https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=304723fa-e197-44fc-a7...

Social exchange theory provides a theoretically coherent explanation for the

average person's work-related outcomes (e.g., Anderson &
Williams, 1996; Kacmar, Witt, Zivnuska, & Gully, 2003), but Machiavellians,
narcissists, and psychopaths are not like most people. They are not
manifestly disagreeable or disruptive, but their valuation of reward and costs,
willingness to overlook obligations and reciprocity, and lack of
emotional commitment to others likely undermine the binding influence of
interpersonal relationships. Machiavellians, for example, are
distrustful, so they are less likely to assume that they will be paid back for any
extra expenditure of effort they put in on the job (Gunnthorsdottir,
McCabe, & Smith, 2002). Narcissists feel they outclass their fellow coworkers so
that rules about reciprocity and obligation do not apply to them
(W. K. Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides, & Elliott, 2000). Psychopaths' insensitivity to
others' means they are less likely to act in ways that will
please others or minimize others' suffering (LeBreton, Binning, & Adorno, 2006).

In the sections that follow, we draw on the social exchange perspective to

hypothesize about the expected relation between each element of
the DT and job performance and CWB. Following Paulhus and Williams (2002, p. 556),
we recognize that these personality traits are
“overlapping but distinct constructs.” Each one describes a set of alternative, and
usually socially condemned, interpersonal tendencies, so
their relations to work behaviors are relatively similar, but the antecedent and
mediating mechanisms that sustain these relations differ from one
DT trait to another. The uniqueness of each trait remains, however, an empirical
question, and we offer hypotheses about possible moderators
of those relations. We do not expect that any variable will change the direction of
the overall relation—it is difficult to imagine a context or
individual trait that would reverse the generally negative effects of the DT—but in
certain contexts these relations may be tempered to a degree.

Machiavellianism and Work Behavior

Studies of marketing (e.g., Crotts, Aziz, & Upchurch, 2005; Hunt & Chonko, 1984),
economics (e.g., Gunnthorsdottir et al., 2002; Sakalaki,
Richardson, & Thépaut, 2007), accounting (e.g., Aziz & Vallejo, 2007; Wakefield,
2008), and applied psychology (e.g., Austin, Farrelly, Black, &
Moore, 2007; Ralston, 1985) suggest that Machiavellianism is linked to work
behavior, but that relation has been cast in both negative and
positive terms. Those proposing a positive relation point to the Machiavellians'
ability to be a social chameleon, taking on the attitudes and
behaviors of those around them while subtly manipulating the situation to their
favor (Hurley, 2005). This skill potentially allows someone high in
Machiavellianism to establish powerful social networks, gain the trust and respect
of coworkers, and extract desired outcomes from clients, thus
increasing job performance. In addition, organizational citizenship behaviors are
often motivated by altruistic intentions, but Machiavellians may
engage in a public display of these behaviors to gain favor and portray themselves
in the best light possible (Kessler et al., 2010).
Machiavellianism paired with a high degree of social effectiveness may result in
the capacity to mask from others the more aversive aspects of
this syndrome (Witt & Ferris, 2003).

These benefits of Machiavellianism are, however, more often counterbalanced by the

significant interpersonal risks one takes by regularly
disrupting exchange relationships through interpersonal manipulation. A willingness
to manipulate does not necessarily coincide with the ability
to manipulate (Austin et al., 2007). Thus, if an individual relies on interpersonal
manipulation but lacks self-presentational acumen, then
coworkers, subordinates, and supervisors will recognize the ruse and the
relationship linking the Machiavellian to the organization will be
weakened rather than strengthened. As the adage “Fool me once, shame on you; fool
me twice, shame on me,” suggests, individuals in
exchange relationships are sensitive to any indication of inequity in the exchange
process (biased allocation of rewards, shirking obligations,
reciprocity violations, etc.), so in time they should be able to detect and take
steps to protect themselves against a Machiavellian's intrigues
(Molm, 2010).

Social exchange theory, therefore, predicts that Machiavellianism will be

negatively associated with job performance. All but a few work
situations require the formation of reliable cooperative alliances with others—for
example, members of teams support each other; salespersons
must create durable relationships with their customers; subordinates meet their
obligations because they are loyal to their managers, teams,
and organization; leaders are trusted by their followers—but Machiavellians'
tendency to violate principles of social exchange weakens their
connection to others. Their pessimistic philosophy of human nature also undermines
the motivational impact of many of the rewards an
organization offers, and their pursuit of success via political machination rather
than direct attention to their work may further degrade their
performance. In consequence, Machiavellians will generally be less successful in
meeting the demands of a business career.
With regard to CWB, Machiavellians are also less constrained by the desire to abide
by the normative requirements of fair social exchange and
thus more likely to engage in interpersonal forms of CWB, such as mistreatment of
coworkers and betrayal. This prediction is consistent with
Kish-Gephart et al.'s (2010) recent meta-analysis, for they found that increases in
Machiavellianism were associated with increases in unethical
behavior. Their findings were based on only four studies, three of which took place
in the laboratory with undergraduate students, but they
nonetheless suggest Machiavellians' unique moral outlook means they are more likely
to violate basic principles regulating social behavior. We
therefore predict the following:
Hypothesis 1a: Machiavellianism will negatively relate to job performance.
Hypothesis 1b: Machiavellianism will positively relate to CWB.

Narcissism and Work Behavior

Social exchange theory's emphasis on the importance of resilient relationships
linking organizational members suggests an inverse relationship
between narcissism and performance. Delusions of grandeur, elitism,
hypercompetitiveness, and feelings of superiority should result in both
formal and informal corrective actions such as low performance ratings, being
passed over for promotion, ostracism, and interpersonal

4 von 29 20.06.2023, 09:39

EBSCOhost https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=304723fa-e197-44fc-a7...

deviance targeted at the narcissist. Supporting this prediction, researchers have

linked increases in narcissism to unsatisfactory task
performance (Judge, Lepine, & Rich, 2006), job dissatisfaction (Soyer, Rovenpor,
Kopelman, Mullins, & Watson, 2001), toxic leadership (A. A.
Schmidt, 2008), and a host of other negative work attitudes and outcomes.

This relationship, however, is far from certain or being universally supported

empirically. Hogan and Kaiser (2005), for example, suggested that
elevated narcissism results in quicker promotion, perhaps because narcissists
engage in a far greater amount of self-promotion (De Vries &
Miller, 1986), impression management (Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005), and
organizational politicking (Vredenburgh & Shea-VanFossen,
2009) to curry favor with superiors. Narcissism creates poor-quality exchanges and
results in negative perceptions about the individual and
tension within the workplace, but narcissists are not necessarily unproductive
workers and may even excel when in positions of authority (W. K.
Campbell, Hoffman, Campbell, & Marchisio, 2011). Narcissists may be dissatisfied in
their place of employment if they feel they are not
receiving all the credit they are due, but the high level of self-approbation of
narcissists tends to leave them relatively pleased with their work
and causes them to overestimate their acceptance by others. Chatterjee and Hambrick
(2007) suggested that narcissism can, in some cases,
benefit not only the narcissist but the organization as a whole.

The link between narcissism and CWB, in contrast, is less uncertain. Theory and
research align in suggesting that narcissists' sense of
entitlement and belief that the usual standards do not apply to them increase the
likelihood of a variety of CWB, including embezzlement,
workplace incivility, bullying, aggression, and white-collar crime (Bogart,
Benotsch, & Pavlovic, 2004; Penney and Spector, 2002). Hence, we
predict the following:
Hypothesis 2a: Narcissism will negatively relate to job performance.
Hypothesis 2b: Narcissism will positively relate to CWB.

Psychopathy and Work Behavior

Despite the fearsome label of the DT's third element—psychopathy—estimates suggest
that as many as three million employees and
employers could be classified as fully expressing psychopathy (Babiak & Hare, 2006;
Babiak, Neumann, & Hare, 2010). As with
Machiavellianism and narcissism, some individuals who are psychopathic in their
personal orientation prosper in business and corporate
settings, particularly if their work requires a rational, emotionless behavioral
style; a consistent focus on achievement even if that achievement
comes at the cost of harm to others; a willingness to take risks; and the social
skills of the charismatic (DePaulo, 2010; Yang & Raine, 2008). In
fact, in some cases, the qualities of the psychopathic individual may be consistent
with the mission and vision of the overall organization. In an
organized criminal enterprise, for example, the emotionless, power-oriented,
aggressive psychopath may be viewed as a good corporate
citizen, provided these qualities are displayed toward targets of the organization
rather than the membership and leadership of the organization
(Wilson, 2010). Babiak and Hare's (2006) extensive analysis of psychopathology in
the workplace (provocatively titled Snakes in Suits)
suggested that 3.5% of top executives earn very high scores on standard measures of
psychopathy.

Such situations are the exception, however, rather than the rule, for the
psychopath's actions would more often than not be inconsistent with
basic principles of social exchange, including reciprocity, trust, cooperation, and
resource exchange. Psychopaths do not respect the rights of
other people—both those they work with closely and those they are expected to serve
—so if their performance evaluations depend, at least in
part, on their ability to work well with others, their overall performance will
likely be negative. Psychopathy is also associated with a lack of
diligence and distain for deadlines and responsibilities, and in most business
settings, this orientation will spell failure. Yet, of the three
components of the DT, psychopathy should be most closely associated with violent,
dangerous, and aggressive CWB. Individuals who are
classified as psychopathic are overrepresented in prisons, for they are more likely
than others to engage in illegal, criminal activities (Hare &
Neumann, 2009).

We predict that psychopathy relates negatively and consistently to job performance

and CWB. Their erratic behavior and failure to empathize
with others makes individuals high in psychopathy less than ideal employees.
Psychopaths are more likely to find little value in indirect rewards
such as social regard and acceptance by coworkers. They are unconcerned with
meeting social obligations and compliance with the norm of
reciprocity. Their low affectivity means that they are less likely to be concerned
for other people or to feel a sense of loyalty to their employer.
Hence, social exchange theory predicts that they are less likely to maintain
production standards, meet job requirements, or be concerned
when given negative feedback about their shortcomings. Higher psychopathy levels
almost certainly increase the amount of CWB engaged in
by a worker. Impulsive destructiveness and decreased inhibitions likely increase
the incidence of theft and sabotage. Their callousness toward
the rights of others may also make them more likely to engage in interpersonal CWB
such as bullying. We predict the following:
Hypothesis 3a: Psychopathy will negatively relate to performance.
Hypothesis 3b: Psychopathy will positively relate to CWB.
Moderators
We assume that the DT effects on performance and CWB are generally negative, but
because these traits manifest their negative effects by
disrupting social exchange processes, situational factors likely moderate their
impact on these work outcomes. Drawing on previous research
and working within the limitations imposed by the available data, for each element
of the DT we consider the moderating effects of two
additional variables: authority and ingroup collectivism (IGC).

5 von 29 20.06.2023, 09:39

EBSCOhost https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=304723fa-e197-44fc-a7...

Authority

The negative effects of the DT on performance and CWB likely depend, in part, on
the individual's position in the organization's hierarchy, for
behavioral tendencies that are viewed as relationally deviant when displayed by a
coworker or subordinate may be considered appropriate or
even admirable when enacted by someone in a position of authority. Specifically,
many of the qualities of Machiavellianism and psychopathy
are consistent with the role demands of leadership or management: Skill in handling
people, political and organizational savvy, detachment, and
the capacity to make decisions on the basis of objective standards rather than
loyalty, trust, or emotions are frequently mentioned in laypersons'
and experts accounts of leadership effectiveness (e.g., Dorfman, Hanges, &
Brodbeck, 2004; Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994). So long as
authorities are sufficiently adept at masking their more socially aversive
interpersonal qualities (such as the lack of integrity), then their
behavioral tendencies may enhance their organizational effectiveness and obviate
their need to engage in CWB (Ray & Ray, 1982). In
consequence, as Jones and Paulhus (2009) suggested, it may not be that authority
dampens the toxic effects of Machiavellianism and
psychopathy but rather that the attainment of authority indicates one is capable of
suppressing or hiding many of the relationally damaging
behaviors associated with these syndromes. We therefore expect that the negative
relations between Machiavellianism and psychopathy and
work behavior (i.e., lower performance, higher CWB) will be weaker for those in
positions of authority and stronger for those individuals who
have not secured positions of influence.

Aspects of a narcissistic personality may also promote organizational success, but

the performance-enhancing aspects of this trait tend to
decline as individuals rise to positions of authority (Brunell et al., 2008).
Studies of narcissism are relatively consistent in their suggestion that
the narcissist's extraversion, need for control and domination, and high level of
self-confidence are often viewed positively when displayed by
those on their way up in an organization, but that narcissists tend to derail once
they are in positions of authority (Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka,
2009). In particular, their penchant for engaging in self-serving claims of
responsibility, lack of interest in feedback from others, tendency toward
self-promotion, arrogance, and displays of temper are detrimental in a leadership
or authoritative role (Hogan & Hogan, 2002). When in a
position of authority, narcissists regularly belittle their subordinates and
exploit their insecurities in an attempt to minimize negative feedback
and create dependencies (House & Howell, 1992). Thus, we expect the negative
effects of narcissism to become even stronger in positions of
authority. In sum, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 4a: Authority will weaken the negative association between
Machiavellianism and work behaviors.
Hypothesis 4b: Authority will strengthen the negative association between
narcissism and work behaviors.
Hypothesis 4c: Authority will weaken the negative association between psychopathy
and work behaviors.

Ingroup collectivism

We also expect that the culture where the worker is embedded will moderate the
effects of the DT on work behavior. Taras, Kirkman, and Steel
(2010) demonstrated the importance of culture to many work outcomes including
organizational commitment and citizenship behavior and
emphasized that culture exists at multiple levels of analysis. Our interest in
culture is as a group-level moderator of the relation between
individual DT traits and work behavior. Culture has been shown to moderate a
variety of workplace relations such as leadership (Kim,
Dansereau, Kim, & Kim, 2004), innovation (Hoffman & Hegarty, 1993), and expatriate
adjustment (Waxin, 2004). One particular dimension of
culture relevant to the DT and work behaviors is IGC. Cultures high in IGC
emphasize duty and loyalty to the organization and its members,
cohesiveness among coworkers, and relatedness among peers, (House, Hanges, Javidan,
Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). Collectivist cultures place
great emphasis on norms of reciprocity (Van Dyne, Vandewalle, Kostova, Latham, &
Cummings, 2000) and are less likely to tolerate the social
exchange violations of the DT. Manipulation of coworkers, self-promotion, and
antisocial behavior are interpreted as disloyalty to the ingroup
and sanctioned accordingly. Because our interest is in the reaction to DT-inspired
behavior rather than culture's influence in creating DT
behavior, we operationalize IGC as the culture where the sample was drawn (i.e.,
where the participants work). Thus, the moderator tests the
effect of the culture that the individual workers are currently embedded in and not
their culture of origin. We expect that cultures high in IGC will
show the strongest deleterious effects of the DT on work behaviors. Thus, we
hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 5a: As IGC increases, the association between Machiavellianism and work
behaviors will strengthen.
Hypothesis 5b: As IGC increases, the association between narcissism and work
behaviors will strengthen.
Hypothesis 5c: As IGC increases, the association between psychopathy and work
behaviors will strengthen.

Interrelations Among the DT Elements

Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy are distinct constructs, but they
share several common features. All three traits are typified by a
high degree of selfishness and a willingness to put one's own needs ahead of
others. All three are socially repugnant (hence their grouping),
and as a result they are often deliberately hidden from others rather than openly
expressed. Machiavellians and psychopaths use social skill
and superficial charm to hide true intentions, and even a narcissist will
occasionally appear humble if only to elicit praise from others. As well as
concealing their true selves from others, those high in any one of the DT traits
likely share a certain degree of self-deception. For those high in
narcissism, self-deception is ego defense. Machiavellians see themselves as
realistic and rationalize behaviors such as backstabbing a
colleague as preemptive or conforming to the norms of an aggressive workplace.
These commonalities have led some researchers to suggest that their overlap is so
substantial that they are indicators of a single latent
construct, rather than independent personality traits. Past researchers examined
the relative fit of unitary and three-component models

6 von 29 20.06.2023, 09:39