733511
research-article2017
JOMXXX10.1177/0149206317733511Journal of ManagementSmith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright
Journal of Management
Vol. XX No. X, Month XXXX 1­–27
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317733511
10.1177/0149206317733511
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright
Personality: A Multidomain Review and Future
Research Agenda
Mickey B. Smith
University of South Alabama
Aaron D. Hill
Oklahoma State University
J. Craig Wallace
University of Denver
Tessa Recendes
Oklahoma State University
Timothy A. Judge
Ohio State University
It has become common practice to refer to personality traits as being either bright or dark, and
a wealth of research has provided support for the effects of both bright traits and dark traits
in organizations. This research has largely focused on explaining the downside of dark traits
and the upside of bright traits. However, a recent trend has emerged in which scholars are
challenging the long-standing convention that bright traits are always beneficial and dark
traits are always detrimental. Instead, novel research has begun to explore the potential upside
of dark traits and downside of bright traits. In this review, we adopt a multidomain perspective—integrating work from organizational behavior, human resources, strategic management,
and entrepreneurship—to highlight this growing body of research. Specifically, we focus on the
work advancing our understanding of the complexity of personality, such as identifying situations in which dark traits may be advantageous or beneficial and detecting curvilinear effects
that suggest too much of a bright trait may be disadvantageous. Furthermore, we provide a
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the editorial team, our action editors David G. Allen and Ernest H.
O’Boyle, and two anonymous reviewers for their guidance throughout the revision process.
Corresponding author: Mickey B. Smith, Department of Management, Mitchell College of Business, University of
South Alabama, 5811 USA Drive South, Mobile, AL 36688-0002, USA.
E-mail: mbsmith@southalabama.edu
1
2 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
brief discussion on special considerations for the measurement of both bright and dark traits
and close with a series of avenues for future research.
Keywords:
personality; top management teams/upper echelon; entrepreneurship
Personality is ubiquitous in organizations—affecting individual actions, group/team
behavior, and organizational-level outcomes (e.g., Finkelstein, Hambrick, & Canella, 2009;
J. Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2010; Spain, Harms, & LeBreton, 2014)—and has a rich history
of study within management research. The evolution of this research in management, as well
as related disciplines (e.g., social psychology, finance), has yielded various models of personality composed of two “shades” of traits: bright traits, defined as those typically seen as
socially desirable, and dark traits, defined as those typically seen as socially undesirable (for
a thorough discussion, see Judge & LePine, 2007). This bright-dark dichotomy of traits is not
meant to imply a moral or ethical connotation to specific traits but rather follows a traditional
view among scholars that some traits, those viewed as bright, are beneficial for individuals
and organizations (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), whereas
other traits, those seen as dark, are detrimental (e.g., O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel,
2012; Spain et al., 2014).
Despite a wealth of research consistent with the notions that “bright traits are beneficial”
and “dark traits are detrimental,” emerging evidence suggests that the effects of personality
in organizations are far more complex than previously observed. For example, extreme levels
of bright traits, such as being too conscientious, may lead to deleterious outcomes to the
degree they are maladaptive to certain situations (e.g., Carter, Guan, Maples, Williamson, &
Miller, 2015; Judge & LePine, 2007), and higher levels of certain dark traits, like narcissism,
may be beneficial in certain situations to the degree they facilitate benefits via means such as
higher levels of adaptive or agentic behaviors (e.g., Castille, Buckner, & Thoroughgood, in
press; Petrenko, Aime, Ridge, & Hill, 2016). In this review, we examine the burgeoning literature on the bright side of dark traits and the dark side of bright traits across all management domains (i.e., organizational behavior, human resources, strategy, entrepreneurship,
groups and teams, research methods). We close with a discussion of current limitations in the
literature and offer an agenda for future research.
Literature Review
Our distinction of bright and dark traits follows prior patterns (e.g., Judge & LePine,
2007). Traits composing traditional models of personality, such as the five-factor model
(FFM, or Big 5; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and the six-factor HEXACO—for Honesty-Humility
(H), Emotionality (E), Extraversion (X), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), and
Openness to Experience (O) (Ashton, Lee, & Goldberg, 2004)—are normally seen as bright
traits in that they are desirable and relate to positive outcomes (Barrick & Mount, 1991;
Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). In contrast, traits such as those in the Dark Triad (Paulhus &
Williams, 2002), the Dark Tetrad (Paulhus, 2014; Plouffe, Saklofske, & Smith, 2017), and
the multifactor model of aberrant personality (Wille, De Fruyt, & De Clercq,
Smith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright 3
2013) are commonly referred to as dark traits and are seen as undesirable. The bright and
dark distinction is not meant to imply a moral or ethical divide. The categorizations correspond to the evolution of a larger bright and dark dichotomy in psychology and management
research; thus, consistent with previous researchers, we employ these terms here for both
parsimony and uniformity while remaining agnostic to any moral or ethical considerations
(Judge & LePine, 2007). Indeed, many of the traits in early models of personality (e.g., the
Big 5) focus on morally and ethically neutral characteristics but note their general benefits to
people and organizations. Subsequently, the tradition has been to approach bright traits as
generally desirable while reprobating dark traits as generally undesirable.
A wealth of research exists showing the benefits of bright traits and the drawbacks of dark
traits, so it would appear relatively easy to assume that bright traits lead only to desirable
outcomes and dark traits are universally bad. However, a growing body of research suggests
this to be an oversimplification. Rather, all personality traits—bright or dark—are likely to
have upsides and downsides. Traits typically seen as bright traits may incorporate maladaptive qualities that are detrimental in some instances, such as prosocial orientation being associated with oversensitivity to aggression (e.g., Schwenzer, 2008). Conversely, traits typically
seen as dark may beget benefits in certain situations, such as the agentic social style associated with the Dark Triad, which helps individuals to extract key resources from their environment (e.g., Jonason, Li, & Teicher, 2010; see also Carter et al., 2015; Judge & LePine, 2007;
Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009). This research—focusing on the downsides of bright traits
and the upsides of dark traits—is the focus of our review.
The domain of personality is broad and includes many traits, and so reviewing each and
every bright or dark trait would be unwieldy. Thus, we had to both narrow our focus on some
traits to the exclusion of others while also attempting to be representative and comprehensive
(cf. Short, 2009). Since our focus was the upside of traits typically seen as dark and vice versa,
we used various methods to systematically identify research to be included in the review.
Specifically, we took the following approaches: (1) we conducted a general database search
(e.g., Web of Science) for the term personality coupled with various descriptors, such as bright,
dark, upside, downside, and curvilinear, among others; (2) we focused on research, as much as
possible, specifically appearing in management and applied psychology journals (e.g., Journal
of Management, Journal of Applied Psychology) along with relevant literature from personality
journals (e.g., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology); (3) we used recent reviews,
meta-analyses, and feedback from the editor and reviewers as sources for identifying additional
relevant traits and literature; and (4) we made sure to highlight literature in the context of each
of the primary domains in management research. As a result of this search process, we offer
Table 1 as a summary of the bright and dark traits we include in the review, and we also point
to other sources that extend beyond what we offer here (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Finkelstein
et al., 2009; J. Hogan et al., 2010; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002; Judge & LePine, 2007;
O’Boyle et al., 2012; Spain et al., 2014). We provide the trait, the source of the trait, and a summary of the components or facets composing the trait.
Organizational Behavior
Dark traits. Several meta-analyses and literature reviews highlight how dark traits positively relate to undesirable workplace outcomes, such as counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), abusive supervision, unethical behavior, and job stress (e.g., Greenbaum, Hill,
4 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
Table 1
Summary of Traits Included in the Review
Personality Trait
Conscientiousness (FFM/
HEXACO)
Agreeableness (FFM/
HEXACO)
Extraversion (FFM/
HEXACO)
Openness to Experience
(FFM/HEXACO)
Neuroticism/Emotional
Stability (FFM/
HEXACO)
Honesty-Humility
(HEXACO)
Machiavellianism (DT3/
DT4)
Narcissism (DT3/DT4)
Source(s)
Components of Trait
Costa & McCrae (1992)
Competence; Order; Dutifulness; Achievement;
Striving; Self-Discipline; Deliberation
Trust; Straightforwardness; Altruism;
Compliance; Modesty; Tender-Mindedness
Warmth; Gregariousness; Assertiveness; Activity;
Excitement seeking; Positive emotions
Fantasy; Aesthetics; Feelings; Actions; Ideas;
Values
Anxiety; Angry hostility; Depression; SelfConsciousness; Impulsivity; Vulnerability
Costa & McCrae (1992)
Costa & McCrae (1992)
Costa & McCrae (1992)
Costa & McCrae (1992)
Lee & Ashton (2005)
Sincerity; Fairness; Greed avoidance; Modesty
Christie & Geis (1970)
Manipulative; Cynical worldview; Lack of
morality
Four-factor model—Distrust of others; Desire for
status; Desire for control; Amoral manipulation
Grandiose sense of self-importance; Delusions of
grandeur; Sensitive to ego threat; Heightened
sense of entitlement; Lack of empathy
Callous; Lack of empathy; Impulsive; Thrill
seeks
Exploitative; Propensity to cruelty
Dahling, Whitaker, &
Levy (2009)
Raskin & Hall (1979,
1981)
Psychopathy (DT3/DT4)
Hare (1985)
Sadism—Everyday (DT4)
Excitable (HDS)
Skeptical (HDS)
Cautious (HDS)
Reserved (HDS)
Buckels, Jones, & Paulhus
(2013)
R. Hogan & Hogan (1997)
R. Hogan & Hogan (1997)
R. Hogan & Hogan (1997)
R. Hogan & Hogan (1997)
Leisurely (HDS)
R. Hogan & Hogan (1997)
Bold (HDS)
R. Hogan & Hogan (1997)
Mischievous (HDS)
Colorful (HDS)
Imaginative (HDS)
Diligent (HDS)
R. Hogan & Hogan (1997)
R. Hogan & Hogan (1997)
R. Hogan & Hogan (1997)
R. Hogan & Hogan (1997)
Dutiful (HDS)
Antisocial (FFMAP)
Narcissistic (FFMAP)
R. Hogan & Hogan (1997)
Wille, De Fruyt, & De
Clercq (2013)
Wille et al. (2013)
Borderline (FFMAP)
Wille et al. (2013)
Schizotypal (FFMAP)
Wille et al. (2013)
Moody; Instances of intense enthusiasm
Cynical/distrusting
Risk aversion; Fear of rejection or harm
Unaware/unconcerned with others’ feelings;
Detached
Irritable/argumentative when others make
requests
Self-confident; Overevaluation of one’s abilities;
Feelings of grandiosity
Risk taking; Manipulative; Cunning; Deceitful
Expressive; Attention seeking
Creative in unusual ways
Perfectionism; Lack of flexibility; Highly critical
of others’ work
Eager to please; Reluctant to take action
Indifferent to others; Callous; Impulsive
Strong sense of self-importance; Lacking
empathy; Seeking social dominance; Need for
admiration
Poor self-concept; Impulsive; Unable to maintain
relations
Unconventional beliefs; Disorganized thoughts;
Social anxiety; Suspicious of others
(continued)
Smith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright 5
Table 1 (continued)
Personality Trait
Source(s)
Components of Trait
Obsessive-Compulsive
(FFMAP)
Avoidant (FFMAP)
Wille et al. (2013)
Perfectionism; Rigid and inflexible
Wille et al. (2013)
Hubris (SM)
Overconfidence (SM)
Roll (1986)
Rovenpor (1993)
Feelings of inadequacy; Hypersensitive to
criticism; Social inhibition
Overbearing presumption of correctness
Overestimation of ability to overcome obstacles
Note: Constructs are mapped onto existing models of bright personality, that is, the five-factor model (FFM) and
HEXACO, and models of dark personality, including the Dark Triad (DT), Dark Tetrad (DT4), Hogan Development
Survey (HDS), and five-factor model of aberrant personality (FFMAP). Hubris and overconfidence were found
exclusively in strategic management (SM).
Mawritz, & Quade, 2017; Grijalva & Newman, 2015; O’Boyle et al., 2012; Wille et al.,
2013; Wu & LeBreton, 2011), and negatively relate to positive employee attitudes and performance (Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009; Mathieu, 2013; Mathieu, Neumann, Hare, &
Babiak, 2014; Michel & Bowling, 2013; O’Boyle et al., 2012; Smith, Wallace, & Jordan,
2016; Wille et al., 2013). Thus, we refer readers to these sources for a discussion of the
undesirable outcomes tied to dark traits. However, there are examples in the literature of the
potential upside to dark traits, which implies that the effects of dark traits are more complex
than previously suggested.
One particularly complicated relationship exists between the Dark Triad and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Narcissists and psychopaths engage in less OCB than
others low in the traits (Schütte et al., in press; Smith et al., 2016), but those high in
Machiavellianism (Machs) appear to exhibit higher levels of challenging OCB. More specifically, Machs engage in challenging OCB under two conditions: when they perceive their
leader to be transformational and in the presence of a preferred transactional psychological
contract (Belschak, Den Hartog, & Kalshoven, 2015; Zagencyk, Restubog, Kiewitz, Kiazad,
& Tang, 2014). This speaks to the means-focused characteristics of Machs. Similarly, Castille
et al. (in press) find Machs to engage in prosocial behaviors, which is a stark derivation from
conventional thinking. Thus, despite their self-interest and hyperfocus on the achievement of
power, Machs may benefit their organizations.
In addition, recent findings indicate the need to consider the influence of contextual factors (e.g., occupation type; Furnham, Trickey, & Hyde, 2012) and nonlinear effects tied to
dark personality. Indeed, Grijalva and Harms (2014) lay out a host of potential moderators
that may reveal the upside of narcissism. For instance, narcissists may be more adept at
working in changing or chaotic environments and when interacting with an audience (e.g.,
customer-facing employees). To this point, Goncalo, Flynn, and Kim (2010) reported a
positive effect between narcissism and other-ratings of creativity, which they attributed to
narcissists’ ability to effectively sell their ideas as being creative. Work by Czarna, Leifeld,
Śmieja, Dufner, and Salovey (2016), for example, highlights the effect of narcissism over
time on popularity in social networks. The authors found that narcissists are initially considered popular, but over time, they make fewer friends—indicating the moderating effect of
time. In addition to moderators, scholars are beginning to report nonlinear relationships in
the dark personality literature (e.g., Goncalo et al., 2010; Grijalva, Harms, Newman, Gaddis,
6 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
& Fraley, 2015). This research evokes trends that are also occurring in bright personality
research.
Bright traits. The relationships among bright traits and beneficial performance outcomes
are well documented (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Chiaburu, Oh, Berry, Li, & Gardner,
2011; Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), but novel research is beginning
to reveal conditions in which bright traits may be a hindrance to employee performance. For
instance, conscientiousness has long been held as the chief personality predictor of performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991). However, LePine (2003) demonstrated that conscientiousness, particularly the dependability subfacet, may hurt team performance when change is
necessitated. In addition, bright traits may enhance undesirable relationships. For instance,
Kim and Glomb (2010) found cognitive ability to be positively associated with victimization,
which was exacerbated by victims possessing high levels of agentic personality. Moreover,
employees high in openness to experience may be less committed to their organizations (Erdheim, Wang, & Zickar, 2006), and those high in agreeableness appear to experience increased
levels of stress due to their inability to cope with interpersonal conflict (Suls, Martin, &
David, 1998). In each of these situations, traits that are commonly held as desirable are not
without potential costs.
Furthermore, recent evidence suggests bright personality traits may have deleterious
effects either when taken to the extreme (e.g., too nice) or when present in certain situations (e.g., too agreeable to dissent to bad ideas; Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005).
This emerging body of research belongs to what management scholars are referring to as
the “too-much-of-a-good-thing” movement (cf. Pierce & Aguinis, 2013) and focuses on
nonlinear effects (e.g., Uppal, 2017). For instance, Carter et al. (2015) reported an
inverted-U relationship between conscientiousness and psychological well-being, likening too much conscientiousness to obsessive-compulsiveness. Others have described
similar inverted-U effects (e.g., Carter, Dalal, Anthony, O’Connell, Kung, & Delgado,
2014; Le, Oh, Robbins, Ilies, Holland, & Westrick, 2011), indicating that there may be
optimum levels of bright traits. In addition, there is value in further investigating the contextual influences on curvilinear effects—situations in which optimum levels of bright
traits change. Indeed, Le et al. (2011) found that task complexity moderated the conscientiousness-performance relationship. Ultimately, higher levels of conscientiousness were
particularly helpful in complex jobs but not in simpler jobs. Wihler, Meurs, Momm, John,
and Blickle (2017) reported findings relating the discipline and achievement motivation
(DAM) factors of conscientiousness to salesperson performance. The authors found a
curvilinear relationship that was moderated by stable social potency (SSP), such that
DAM exhibited an inverted-U shape when SSP was low but a gradual U shape when SSP
was high. These findings imply that too much conscientiousness can be counterproductive, particularly for those who lack relevant social skills to channel their conscientiousness in positive ways.
Leadership Emergence and Effectiveness
Dark traits. Research integrating leadership and dark personality is a burgeoning line
of study. As Hiller and Hambrick (2005) noted, individuals with dark personality traits are
Smith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright 7
particularly inclined to advance into leadership positions. Indeed, dark personality traits
have been shown to relate to leader emergence (Grijalva et al., 2015; Owens, Wallace, &
Waldman, 2015; Paunonen, Lönnqvist, Verkasalo, Leikas, & Nissinen, 2006), and individuals high in dark traits are commonly promoted to points of leadership within organizations
(Hiller & Hambrick, 2005; R. Hogan & Hogan, 2001). Consider narcissists, hubristic/overconfident individuals, and Machs, who all exhibit the propensity to self-promote and take
risks, which causes them to stand out among other potential leaders. Narcissists, for example,
may be particularly inclined to emerge in moments of uncertainty or chaos because they are
perceived by stakeholders to be creative and confident. Machs may be adept at navigating
organizational politics to achieve positions of power. Hall and Benning (2006) speak of “successful psychopaths” and how they reach top leadership positions. Thus, these individuals
appear to effectively position themselves for future leadership opportunities, and others readily promote them.
However, emerging as a leader does not necessarily equate to being an effective one, and
the evidence is mixed in terms of dark personality and leader effectiveness. Prior research
illustrates these effects, specifically for follower outcomes (Mathieu et al., 2014), self-ratings
of leadership-related outcomes (Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006), and organizational-level outcomes (Craig & Amernic, 2011; Galvin, Waldman, & Balthazard, 2010; O’Reilly, Doerr,
Caldwell, & Chatman, 2014). Grijalva and colleagues’ (2015) meta-analysis reported a positive relationship between narcissism and leader emergence but no effect between narcissism
and leader effectiveness. However, Owens and colleagues (2015) found narcissism to negatively relate to perceptions of leader effectiveness. Paunonen and colleagues (2006) concluded that leader effectiveness and leader emergence varied depending upon the positive or
negative subfacets of narcissism being studied. For instance, among 200 military cadets,
effective leaders exhibited positive aspects of narcissism (e.g., egotism, self-esteem) and
fewer negative aspects of narcissism (e.g., manipulation, impression management).
Ultimately, there appears to be duality among leadership and dark personality in which
terms such as corporate psychopathy (Boddy, Miles, Sanyal, & Hartog, 2015) and managerial derailment (J. Hogan et al., 2010) describe the downfall of leaders, but certain components of dark traits lead individuals to emerge as, and are in some instances perceived to be
effective, leaders (Judge et al., 2009). Tied to the latter, another angle for studying emergence
and effectiveness might be investigating how dark traits relate to effective leadership styles
(Peterson, Galvin, & Lange, 2012). For instance, Deluga (1997, 2001) reported that U.S.
presidents who were rated as narcissistic or Machiavellian were viewed as charismatic and
as better performers. This is a limited area of research, but it may be an avenue for uncovering how dark traits relate both to emergence and to effectiveness.
Bright traits. Bright traits, such as extraversion, are common predictors of leader emergence and effectiveness (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002), but some bright traits may
be less advantageous for leaders in certain situations or at extreme levels (Judge et al., 2009).
For instance, R. Hogan and Hogan (2001) outlined potential pitfalls of leaders possessing
high levels of diligence and dutifulness, narrow traits commonly associated with conscientiousness and agreeableness. They suggested that the diligent leader, who is a micromanager
and restricts the autonomy of followers, may be perceived as ineffective and potentially
harmful to employee and team performance. The downside of dutifulness for a leader might
8 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
include failing to take a stand when conflict arises or an inability to make tough decisions.
Similarly, high levels of agreeableness may undermine the performance evaluation process,
leading to inaccurate and ineffective information (Bernardin, Cooke, & Villanova, 2000).
Like dark traits, there is a need to further study bright personality in relation to leadership
styles. This is a well-established body of research, but we see the opportunity to address
unanswered questions—particularly considering the recent research on nonlinear relationships. For instance, do extreme levels of bright traits counteract the commonly observed
benefits of transformational leadership? Perhaps leaders high in emotional stability, a trait
commonly seen as desirable in leaders, may be perceived as lacking attachment or concern
for follower well-being (Judge et al., 2009). Indeed, extreme levels of emotional stability
may interfere with the idealized influence component of transformation leadership, which is
one of the more powerful sources of follower inspiration.
The implications of personality are particularly salient when considering leadership from
a practitioner view. If dark traits of leaders lead to the development of dark organizational
processes, routines, or cultures, there may be ramifications for employees at lower levels that
ultimately harm the organization’s bottom line (Crook, Ketchen, Combs, & Todd, 2008).
Organizational leaders who possess certain dark personality traits may make suboptimal
decisions and fail to adjust course considering overconfidence and commitment (Chatterjee
& Hambrick, 2011; Chen, Crossland, & Luo, 2015). Those tasked with selection of individuals or with leading others should consider the potential deleterious impacts of certain dark
traits. Ultimately, dark personality may be quite consequential to organizational effectiveness. These same aspects extend, although in different ways, to bright personality traits as
well (e.g., negative perceptions of overly dutiful leaders). Ultimately, these are topics in need
of subsequent research.
Human Resources
Bright and dark traits have considerable implications for human resource practices.
Research in this area focuses more on bright traits, but there have been several recent calls
for more research into the effects of dark personality in human resources (e.g., Campbell,
Hoffman, Campbell, & Marchisio, 2011; Dilchert, Ones, & Krueger, 2014). Of chief interest
is how dark personality affects personnel decision making and whether applicants with dark
personalities have an advantage in the selection process. For example, narcissists are positively rated in both interviewing situations (Paulhus, Westlake, Calvez, & Harms, 2013) and
assessment centers (Brunell, Gentry, Campbell, Hoffman, Kuhnert, & DeMaree, 2008),
which leads some to raise concerns that dark traits may subvert the effectiveness of selection
methods. Machs, for instance, are more likely to use deception to make themselves appear
better than others (Hogue, Levashina, & Hang, 2013), which implicates their willingness and
ability to lie throughout a selection program. Given desirability and faking concerns, one
might consider these risks to be escalated in a high-stakes scenario such as interviewing for
a job. Although researchers champion personality assessments as effective tools for personnel selection, these assessments have largely measured bright traits. Thus, special consideration should be made when attempting to measure dark traits.
Some have raised concerns for the potential liability tied to measuring and basing personnel decisions on dark traits. Individuals who have been diagnosed with Axis II disorders,
Smith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright 9
such as clinical psychopathy, are protected by law under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Despite this protection, Wu and LeBreton (2011) provide a sound rationale for why measuring dark personality within a selection protocol should not pose a threat to disability discrimination claims. For instance, the scales used in academic research were developed and
validated to measure subclinical levels of dark traits, not to assess and diagnose individuals.
Furthermore, only a small portion of the population (~10%) would score high in any of the
dark traits. Nonetheless, practitioners should always consider the job relatedness of bright or
dark personality when using it as a metric of selection and, at the same time, consider tradeoffs of these traits.
Beyond selection, more work is needed in the areas of promotion, training and development, and turnover. Possible insights might be offered by the work of Furguson, Semper,
Yates, Fitzgerald, Skatova, and James (2014), who discuss how too much conscientiousness
and too little anxiety are detrimental with respect to the acquisition of knowledge and skill in
medical professions, implying that there are effects for training and personal development.
Likewise, although dark personality shares positive relationships with bad behaviors (e.g.,
CWB) and negative relationships with desired behaviors (e.g., job performance), we know
little of the subsequent effects these relationships have on other important human resource
outcomes.
Strategic Management
Within strategic management, personality research typically explicitly employs upper
echelons theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984) or implicitly utilizes similar logic to explain
how the personality of important decision makers, such as the CEO or top management team
(TMT), affects organizational outcomes (for a review, see Finkelstein et al., 2009). As
Hambrick noted, “If we want to understand why organizations do the things they do, or why
they perform the way they do, we must consider the biases and dispositions of their most
powerful actors—their top executives” (2007: 334). Thus, the bright and dark personality
traits of executives have become focal points in strategic management research.
Dark traits. Strategy researchers largely focus on three dark personality traits: executive
hubris, overconfidence, and narcissism. Most of this research highlights how CEOs higher
in hubris and/or overconfidence are bad for organizations and stockholders (Hayward &
Hambrick, 1997; Malmendier & Tate, 2008; Seth, Song, & Pettit, 2002). Hubristic CEOs
appear to engage in fewer socially responsible activities (Tang, Qian, Chen, & Shen, 2015),
and overconfident managers choose ineffective strategies that commonly fail (Camerer &
Lovallo, 1999; Simon & Hougton, 2003). While firms with narcissistic CEOs do not tend to
perform better or worse than firms with less narcissistic executives, CEO narcissism positively relates to variance in performance (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Wales, Patel, &
Lumpkin, 2013). Furthermore, narcissistic CEOs tend to be particularly bold, engaging in
risky actions reflecting their self-perceived superiority (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2011; Zhu
& Chen, 2015a, 2015b) and need for attention (Petrenko et al., 2016).
Only a few studies identify “bright spots” associated with darker CEO traits. For example,
Patel and Cooper acknowledged both dark and bright aspects of CEO narcissism, arguing
that “while narcissistic CEOs are less likely to protect against potential shocks, they are adept
10 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
at helping firms recover from such shocks” (2014: 1528). Tang, Li, and Yang (2015) and
Hirshleifer, Low, and Teoh (2012) found that CEO hubris/overconfidence positively related
to innovation. Petrenko et al. (2016) concluded that narcissistic CEOs engaged in socially
responsible activities because of the positive attention it brings upon them. In addition, narcissistic executives appear to be more impervious to social influence than others low in the
trait (Zhu & Chen, 2015a, 2015b). This is a growing body of research, but the extant evidence
suggests that narcissistic, hubristic, and overconfident executives may not always be bad for
organizations or certain stakeholders.
Bright traits. Although the dominant focus on personality in strategic management
research has been dark traits (Ridge & Ingram, 2014), there is a stream of research on the
effects of bright traits such as the FFM (e.g., Colbert, Barrick, & Bradley, 2014; De Vries &
Miller, 1986), humility (e.g., Ou, Seo, Choi, & Hom, in press; Ou, Waldman, & Peterson,
in press), and charisma (e.g., Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001; Wowak, Mannor, Arrfelt, & McNamara, 2016). Like the effects of dark personality, however, this body
of research almost always contends that these traits are beneficial for firms (e.g., Ou, Tsui,
Kinicki, Waldman, Xiao, & Song, 2014; Owens, Johnson, & Mitchell, 2013). However, this
research has yet to systematically address the possible downsides of such traits in executives—an area rich with research opportunities.
An example is CEO charisma. Some have found CEO charisma to be beneficial for firms
(Waldman et al., 2001; Waldman, Javidan, & Varella, 2004), while others have contended
that it has no impact on firm outcomes (Agle, Nagarajan, Sonnenfeld, & Srinivasan, 2006;
Tosi, Misangyi, Fanelli, Waldman, & Yammarino, 2004). However, charismatic CEOs may
have certain opportunities to take advantage of or manipulate others for self-gain. Wowak
and colleagues (2016) discussed how charismatic CEOs attain influence over external
observers such as investors (Flynn & Staw, 2004) and securities analysts (Fanelli, Misangyi,
& Tosi, 2009). The concern would be that a charismatic CEO could misuse this influence for
personal gain. Similar effects might be present in other bright traits, such as modesty and
humility. These CEOs would likely be perceived favorably (Ridge & Ingram, 2014), which
might offer them the opportunity to engage in self-interested agentic behavior. Also, bright
traits may essentially backfire when taken to the extreme. For example, the CEO of Google,
Eric Schmidt, was viewed as “too nice” to win the war with Apple (Manjoo, 2010).
Entrepreneurship
Dark traits. Given the crucial role that entrepreneurs’ abilities and traits play in guiding their decision making, scholars have called for a focused investigation into possible dark
sides of entrepreneurial personality traits (e.g., DeNisi, 2015; Klotz & Neubaum, 2016). As in
research on executives, scholars have examined the potential influence that hubris and overconfidence each has on the entrepreneurial process and entrepreneurial outcomes (Haynes,
Hitt, & Campbell, 2015; Hayward, Shepherd, & Griffin, 2006). For instance, Navis and Ozbek
(2016) concluded that entrepreneurs with high levels of overconfidence are drawn to new
ventures operating in novel contexts rather than new ventures operating in familiar contexts.
Furthermore, traits appear to influence one’s entrepreneurial orientation (EO). Engelen,
Gupta, Strenger, and Brettel (2015) investigated the link between CEO overconfidence and
firm EO, finding that CEO overconfidence was positively related to EO. Wales et al. (2013)
Smith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright 11
found that CEO narcissism both positively related to EO and mediated the relationship
between EO and performance variation. Although these effects are occurring at the strategic
level, the subsequent effects of overconfidence speak to the behavioral tendencies of entrepreneurs. Relatedly, links between the Dark Triad and both entrepreneurial intentions and
productive versus unproductive entrepreneurship also appear in the literature (Hmieleski &
Lerner, 2013). Individuals higher on the Dark Triad may be more likely to possess entrepreneurial intentions because they view entrepreneurship as a path to satisfy their need for attention and admiration—leading to venture formation.
Bright traits. There is evidence that bright traits are not always beneficial for entrepreneurs. Much of this research focuses on individual traits outside of the FFM or HEXACO
(for exceptions, see the use of openness and agreeableness by De Jong, Song, & Song, 2013).
For instance, two studies by Hmieleski and Baron (2008, 2009) elucidate the potential downsides of entrepreneurial optimism—the former finding that high optimism and self-efficacy
can be detrimental for organizational performance in dynamic environments and the latter
suggesting that optimism is negatively related to both revenue and employment growth in
new ventures. Likewise, both Baron, Hmieleski, and Henry (2012) and Baron, Tang, and
Hmieleski (2011) discussed the potential benefits and costs of positive affect, whereas Baron,
Mueller, and Wolfe (2016) argue that high levels of self-efficacy may cause entrepreneurs to
set unattainable goals. Self-efficacy and self-assurance are two attributes scholars typically
consider to be beneficial for entrepreneurs, but when taken to the extreme, these positive
traits may manifest into undesirable outcomes. Indeed, entrepreneurial personality is a complex factor that needs significant study (Klotz & Neubaum, 2016; D. Miller, 2015).
Dark and Bright Personality Within Groups and Teams
Dark traits. On the basis of our review, we find that the largest gap in the literature exists
within groups and teams. Group- and team-level study of personality is typically framed
in terms of leader-group/team effects or group/team personality composition, and most of
this research involving personality incorporates bright personality traits (e.g., FFM; LePine,
Buckman, Crawford, & Methot, 2011). However, we could find only a few management
studies at the group or team level incorporating dark personality.
Baysinger, Scherer, and LeBreton (2014) investigated the impact psychopathy had on
group processes and effectiveness and found an indirect effect on group performance, commitment, and cohesion through negative socioemotional behavior and task participation.
Work by Wisse and Sleebos (2016) showed Machiavellianism to positively relate to supervisor abuse. Goncalo and colleagues (2010) found that too many narcissists within a group led
to decreased creativity—a curvilinear effect. In their study of collective narcissism, Golec de
Zavala, Cichocka, and Iskra-Golec (2013) concluded that within groups high in collective
narcissism, in-group image threat led to intergroup hostility. These few studies serve as
exemplars to a nascent body of research that has so far followed the traditional view that dark
traits are bad for group/team outcomes.
Bright traits. Beyond the vast study of how high mean levels of bright traits lead to good
outcomes (e.g., mean-level team conscientiousness and performance; Bell, 2007), there are
concerns that some bright traits may be harmful for group or team effectiveness. Although
12 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
agreeableness is commonly tied to lower levels of conflict in groups (e.g., Varela, Burke, &
Landis, 2008), there may be times in which certain forms of conflict are necessary. In these
instances, having all agreeable members may lead to outcomes such as groupthink (Janis,
1982) or forced agreement. Also, using a disjunctive approach to composition in the group
or team, there are likely instances in which variance in bright personalities may cause harm
through emotional or relational conflict—the proverbial personality clash.
Essentially, personality research must move beyond simply studying how mean levels or
variance of personality traits within groups and teams—both bright and dark—independently affect outcomes at that level. Instead, it may be more fruitful to study how certain
facets of traits uniquely affect outcomes or how processes are affected by the interplay of
composition and dispersion (i.e., using mean-dispersion models of group or team personality composition). We see further value in investigating nonlinear effects for group/team
outcomes (e.g., teams with too many conscientious individuals may not be able to adapt to
changing contexts).
Personality Measurement and Alternatives
The appropriate methods of measuring and analyzing personality vary according to
numerous factors. Although these topics are largely outside the scope of our article, we nonetheless offer some insights specific to the thrust of our review while drawing attention to
more comprehensive coverage of the topics where possible for those interested in additional
reading.
Self-report questionnaires remain the dominant technique for measuring bright and dark
personality alike. The long-lived debate surrounding the use of self-report measures of personality is well documented elsewhere (see the discussion between Morgeson, Campion,
Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, & Schmitt, 2007, and Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Judge,
2007), but there are specific concerns with the prevailing use of short composite scales, particularly with dark personality traits. These measures were developed with the intention of
easing the burden created by long single-trait batteries used in clinical settings (e.g., the
40-item Narcissistic Personality Inventory; Raskin & Terry, 1988). For instance, lengthy
measures create issues of feasibility and fatigue. However, scholars have raised concerns that
shorter measures may create a bandwidth-fidelity problem. Scales such as the 12-item Dirty
Dozen (Jonason & Webster, 2010) and the 27-item Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones & Paulhus,
2014) are intended to broadly capture the traits in the Dark Triad. Considering the ample
work evoking various facets of each of the Dark Triad traits, among other broad traits (e.g.,
Dahling et al., 2009; Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford, 2013), critics of brief
scales question the content validity of scales attempting to capture a trait such as
Machiavellianism in four items (i.e., the Dirty Dozen). Ultimately, the chief concern is that
short composite scales fail to capture important facets of dark traits when compared to longer
single-trait measures (e.g., the Machiavellian Personality Scale; Dahling et al., 2009).
Although self-report questionnaires remain the dominant form of measurement, there are
alternative techniques appearing in the extant literature. First, researchers rely on other-ratings as opposed to self-ratings. Scholars note the reliability and validity of other-ratings of
psychological constructs, particularly personality (Connelly & Ones, 2010; Oh, Wang, &
Mount, 2011). Still, there are some concerns. Some traits may be difficult for observers to
Smith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright 13
accurately assess. Items in personality inventories are commonly attitudinal or cognitive,
thus untenable through external ratings, and may be influenced by contextual factors (e.g.,
level of acquaintanceship; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000). Nevertheless, other-source
ratings, particularly when used in conjunction with self-evaluations, pose significant implications for the study of personality. Indeed, we see this as a viable way to study the effects of
personality on leadership outcomes (e.g., perceived effectiveness), group/team outcomes
(e.g., role conflict), and organizational outcomes (e.g., identity). For instance, is effectiveness influenced by differences or similarities between the supervisor’s self-reported personality and the subordinate’s view of that supervisor? Does the perceived personality of the
CEO influence how employees identify with the organization? These applications could
extend to both bright and dark traits.
Another alternative to using self-report measures is to move away from this measurement approach altogether (e.g., unobtrusive measures; Hill, White, & Wallace, 2014). For
instance, proxies offer opportunities to assess psychological constructs in hard-to-access
populations like executives (Cycyota & Harrison, 2006) or stigmatized occupations
(Ashforth, Kreiner, Clark, & Fugate, in press). For example, Hayward and Hambrick
(1997) measured executive hubris using the CEO’s relative compensation and shareholder
returns as proxies. Proxies have limitations as a means for assessing psychological constructs (e.g., Lawrence, 1997) but nonetheless may be a viable approach for some research
designs. For example, the videometric approach leverages the increasing availability of
video samples in the public domain (Petrenko et al., 2016), whereas historiometric
approaches (Deluga, 1997; Mannor, Wowak, Bartkus, & Gomez-Mejia, 2016) draw upon
historical events. Both of these techniques would offer researchers the opportunity to
covertly measure traits with strong desirability concerns, which is a central concern in selfreport measures of personality—particularly dark personality—and also offers avenues for
cross-validation, including assessing convergence across multiple approaches as Hill et al.
(2014) note (cf. Petrenko et al., 2016; Zhu & Chen, 2015a, 2015b).
Bright personality constructs have long been studied using methods such as conditional
reasoning tests (CRT), frequency estimation, and implicit association tests (IAT), which
allow researchers to covertly assess attitudinal and cognitive constructs (e.g., James, 1998).
In addition to the well-documented use of CRT and IAT, technological advances and decreases
in operating costs have made certain brain imaging techniques, such as electroencephalogram, more feasible (e.g., Bagozzi & Lee, in press; Waldman, Ward, & Becker, 2017).
However, other methods of measurement, such as the use of functional magnetic resonance
imaging to map the neural correlates of dark personality (Bagozzi, Verbeke, Dietvorst,
Belschak, van den Berg, & Rietdijk, 2013; Verbeke, Rietdijk, van den Berg, Dietvorst, Worm,
& Bagozzi, 2011), remain costly—albeit quite interesting and informative. These methods
open an entirely new set of research opportunities focusing on the neural mapping of personality and common patterns of brain activity tied to specific traits.
Finally, the focus of this review clearly illustrates the growing interest in testing extreme
levels of personality traits and curvilinear effects. Thus, researchers have begun to assess
various techniques that more effectively reveal these effects. For example, some scholars
recommend using ideal point models in place of the more common dominance models in
measuring personality. The ideal point technique allows respondents to more effectively
score themselves along a construct continuum instead of simply forcing a response in one
14 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
direction or another (e.g., Dalal & Carter, 2015). In several instances, this method has been
shown effective in detecting previously unobserved curvilinear effects (e.g., Carter et al.,
2014; Carter et al., 2015). In addition, too little/too much (TLTM) scaling is a measurement
approach that may improve the ability to detect curvilinear relationships beyond Likert-type
scales (Vergauwe, Wille, Hofmans, Kaiser, & De Fruyt, 2017). Some attribute the existence
of extreme scores on measures of psychological constructs to artifacts of extreme response
style (cf. Naemi, Beal, & Payne, 2009), and TLTM scaling may offer promise in this vein. We
see value in further integrating both TLTM and ideal point models into personality research.
Current Limitations and Future Directions
Construct Redundancy
Construct redundancy is a pervasive issue across management research (e.g., Le, Schmidt,
Harter, & Lauver, 2010). The concern is that there are too many closely related constructs
that are not sufficiently distinct, and this has quickly become a focal issue of personality
researchers—specifically, the redundancy of dark traits with bright traits (e.g., DeShong,
Grant, & Mullins-Sweatt, 2015; O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, Story, & White, 2015).
Furthermore, there is concern that multitrait models such as the Dark Triad describe a single
unitary trait (J. D. Miller, Hyatt, Maples-Keller, Carter, & Lynam, 2016; Vize, Lynam,
Collison, & Miller, in press), calling into question the decision to study the Dark Triad as
unique traits. These issues also appear in strategy research. For example, scholars often
define both hubris and overconfidence as “the tendency of individuals to overestimate their
abilities” (cf. Hill, Kern, & White, 2012: 188). These examples illustrate a growing contention within the literature that is in dire need of attention.
One of the larger concerns in the literature centers on the added value of distinguishing
dark traits from more established models of bright personality. Consistent reporting of relationships between bright and dark traits has led some to conclude that dark traits are simply
variants of bright traits (e.g., Lee & Ashton, 2014; J. D. Miller, Lynam, Widiger, & Leukefeld,
2001). For instance, evidence suggests that the traits composing the Dark Triad and the Dark
Tetrad are negatively related to both agreeableness (DeShong, Helle, Lengel, Meyer, &
Mullins-Sweatt, 2017) and the honesty-humility factor of HEXACO (Lee & Ashton, 2014;
Plouffe et al., 2017). These relationships, along with meta-analytic evidence, call into question
the true uniqueness of dark traits and, thus, the value of studying dark traits in isolation.
Considering these criticisms, we see several opportunities for future research. First, the
other side of the construct redundancy debate offers support for the uniqueness of dark traits
from bright traits and the distinction of dark traits from other dark traits (e.g., O’Boyle et al.,
2012; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). To date, most of the effort has been dedicated to empirically separating dark traits from bright traits (e.g., convergence and divergent validity),
which is potentially putting the cart before the horse. Instead, we contend that scholars should
first consider the conceptual definitions of existing personality traits—both bright and dark—
and address weaknesses in those definitions (see recommendations of Podsakoff, MacKinzie,
& Podsakoff, 2016). One of the strongest arguments we see for the uniqueness of dark personality stems from its origin in clinical settings, which is contrary to bright traits that largely
originated in social psychology. There is a clear divergence in the clinical population, per
strict guidelines for diagnosis, and the study of normal-range populations. For constructs that
Smith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright 15
do not stem from clinical settings, however, such as hubris and overconfidence, we need to
more clearly articulate the specific aspects of the traits that distinguish them from other similar constructs. Chen et al. (2015) noted that amid concerns for conceptual overlap, strategy
scholars have sometimes offered conceptual distinctions between definitions of hubris and
overconfidence. For instance, Hayward and Hambrick defined hubris as “exaggerated pride
or self-confidence, often resulting in retribution” (1997: 106). Although we are not championing the development of more scales, as there are too many existing measures to report in
this review, we are suggesting that subsequent scale development or refinement be based first
on theory and second on empirics. Another avenue for advancing this work is by focusing on
subfacets of personality traits.
Facets of Personality
The prevailing work in personality evokes broad traits. However, traits composing the
most popular models of personality (e.g., FFM, Dark Triad) are not truly first-order constructs. Instead, these traits are second-order constructs composed of facets. For instance,
conscientiousness is commonly studied as a single-factor construct, but it was developed as
a multifaceted trait encompassing the subfacets of competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and deliberation (Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991). The same
applies for dark traits. Narcissism, for example, can be separated into vulnerable and grandiose narcissism (J. D. Miller, Hoffman, Gaughan, Gentile, Maples, & Campbell, 2011). There
is debate as to whether and how to “split” traits into various facets or “lump” them together.
Rather than repeat this lively conversation, we instead wish to note that there is discussion on
the topic as well as that a growing number of personality researchers are shifting their attention to the effects of splitting traits into facets in place of broadly lumping traits. Indeed,
extant research demonstrates the utility of applying a facet-based approach to uncover the
nuanced effects of both bright traits (e.g., LePine, 2003; Wihler et al., 2017) and dark traits
(e.g., Czarna, Dufner, & Clifton, 2014; Schütte et al., in press). Scholars interested in this
area should refer to these works, but we offer a summary and some implications here.
Judge and colleagues (2013) made a compelling case to study facets of the FFM, citing
that their meta-analytic evidence supports the effective bandwidth of narrower traits; recent
research suggests this to be true for dark traits as well (e.g., Dahling et al., 2009; J. D. Miller,
Flory, Lynam, & Leukefeld, 2003; Whiteside, Lynam, Miller, & Reynolds, 2005). J. D. Miller
et al. (2011) found evidence that the two-factor model of narcissism (i.e., vulnerable, grandiose) led to unique relationships between each narcissism facet and facets of the Big 5 and
interpersonal variables. Furthermore, Czarna et al. (2014) demonstrated the independent
effects of vulnerable and grandiose narcissism in relation to popularity within peer networks.
Similar findings have emerged for psychopathy (Schütte et al., in press) and the multidimensional Hogan Development Survey (R. Hogan & Hogan, 1997), which further support calls
to study facets in lieu of broad traits.
Applying a facet-based approach to studying dark personality may effectively address
concerns with construct redundancy by narrowing the focus on certain dimensions of bright
and dark traits. Instances in which facets of dark traits do not neatly map onto broader (or
narrower) bright traits could indicate uniqueness among the traits. We need to note that
although we see this as a potential way to refute construct redundancy, critics also apply a
16 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
facet-based approach to challenge the uniqueness of dark traits. O’Boyle et al. (2015) reported
that each of the Dark Triad traits effectively mapped onto several facets of the FFM. Jakobwitz
and Egan (2006) suggested that their data supported a two-factor psychopathy construct over
three individual traits in the Dark Triad. Nonetheless, more work is needed focusing on the
theoretical development of bright and dark traits—specifically, how either narrow facetbased approaches or broad approaches influence the observed similarities and differences
among bright and dark traits.
Moving Beyond Bright = Good and Dark = Bad
One of the central themes in this review is expanding upon prior efforts that focus almost
exclusively on the downside of dark traits and the upside of bright traits. The perspective that
dark traits are universally bad or bright traits are universally good ignores many of the findings from newer research. Although we are not the first to identify this pattern (cf. Judge &
LePine, 2007), we reiterate the importance of moving beyond the traditional bright = good
and dark = bad paradigm. We suggest two paths to further challenge the old paradigm: studying moderators and personality in the context of creativity and innovation.
There are several situations in which bright traits may be less desirable and dark traits may
be more desirable, and uncovering these contextual moderators will enhance understanding.
For example, occupation type likely plays a central role in the effectiveness of certain behavioral tendencies tied to both bright and dark traits. There may be certain jobs in which people
high in dark traits flourish and, conversely, certain occupations where higher levels of bright
traits hinder effective functioning. Also, there is the conundrum surrounding managerial
derailment (R. Hogan & Hogan, 2001). Although certain image-enhancing traits like narcissism and Machiavellianism may be beneficial for climbing the corporate ladder, these traits
also appear to benefit external stakeholders—narcissistic CEOs engaging in socially responsible activities (Petrenko et al., 2016). Applying theories such as the socioanalytic theory (R.
Hogan, 1983), there are certain jobs or positions in which individuals with certain dark personalities must “get along” to “get ahead,” and it appears that they can. Thus, researchers
need to address when and why certain bright or dark traits are conducive for certain jobs.
Personality is understudied in the context of creativity and innovation (Anderson, Potočnik,
& Zhou, 2014). Thus, another avenue for future research would be to study how dark traits
might benefit creative or innovative behavior and how bright traits, particularly at extreme
levels, might hinder creative or innovative behavior. Limited evidence indicates that certain
dark traits may be related to creative and innovative performance (e.g., Deluga, 1997; Goncalo
et al., 2010; Wisse, Barelds, & Rietzschel, 2015). However, we expect that these relationships
are much more complex than early evidence suggests. Indeed, we recommend that researchers
move beyond simple correlations and attempt to map the underlying motives and mechanisms
driving these relationships. For instance, may narcissists’ need for external approval drive
them to be more creative, and might more hubristic individuals’ self-belief allow them to continue with idea generation in the face of constant setbacks? This line of study might also lead
scholars to revisit the relationship between bright personality and creativity and innovation.
For instance, certain bright traits, when taken to the extreme, may hinder creative thinking.
Overly conscientious individuals do not appear to adapt well to change (LePine, 2003), which
could lead them to miss external opportunities for innovation.
Smith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright 17
Interaction and Nonlinear Effects
Within personality models (e.g., Dark Triad, FFM, HEXACO), it is theoretically possible
that traits interact. Indeed, researchers have documented the work-related effects of trait
interaction (e.g., Judge & Erez, 2007; Witt, 2002; Witt, Andrews, & Carlson, 2004). To date,
little attention has been given to interactions among dark personality traits or between dark
traits and bright traits (for an exception, see Kaiser, LeBreton, & Hogan, 2015). Interactions
could pose very interesting implications for organizations, particularly for executives and
entrepreneurs. For instance, narcissistic CEOs engage in higher levels of corporate social
responsibility (Petrenko et al., 2016), but would the psychopathic, narcissistic CEO do the
same? Machs high in narcissism may be less inclined to carefully navigate social interaction
because they are so focused on self-promotion. Each of these situations, among countless
other possible interactions, creates potential implications for management researchers and
practitioners.
In line with calls to expand nonlinear effects of bright traits to reveal possible downsides
(e.g., Carter et al., 2014; Carter et al., 2015; Le et al., 2011), scholars recently noted the
potential in studying nonlinear effects in dark traits (Spain et al., 2014). We believe that there
is value in applying the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect to the study of both dark and bright
traits. However, instead of too much, is there a “just right” amount of a trait? For example, is
it possible for one to be just enough of a Mach or to possess the optimum level of hubris?
Kaiser et al. (2015) offer initial support that there are in fact optimum levels of certain dark
traits. We see value in applying some of the methodological techniques we described above
(e.g., ideal point model) in order to investigate these research questions.
Multilevel Study of Personality
Terms such as personality composition, personality similarity, and group or team personality all speak to the effects of personality in groups and teams and are relevant for both
bright and dark traits (e.g., Bell, 2007; Bradley, Klotz, Postlethwaite, & Brown, 2013).
However, this literature has largely neglected dark personality. Composition models might
explain how dark personality affects experiences in the aggregate, such as emotional conflict,
psychological safety, and cohesion. For instance, there are implications of dark personality
for social exchange (e.g., O’Boyle et al., 2012), which is an underlying mechanism of team
success (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Thus, it is likely that exchange in groups and teams
is also influenced by individuals high in dark traits. Composition research could also be
applied to the study of boards of directors and TMTs. How might this influence the effectiveness of TMTs or work groups? Moreover, as organizations may consist of multiple groups
and/or teams, a multilevel approach might be beneficial to the study of outcomes at this level
that stem from personality in these aggregate units.
In addition, composition research can be studied through a multilevel lens, which would
lead scholars to find group- or team-level variables that mitigate or exacerbate the negative
effects of dark traits. For instance, firm policies or group/team norms may inhibit deviant
behaviors of psychopathic employees, whereas certain organizational climates (e.g., hostile
climate) may offer psychopathic employees a greater opportunity to act aggressively toward
coworkers, managers, or customers. Trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett &
Guterman, 2000) might aid researchers in explaining the situational factors that lead to the
18 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
exhibition or inhibition of trait-based behaviors—some have already begun to apply the theory to dark personality (e.g., Greenbaum et al., 2017).
Strategic Management
We note several avenues for future personality research within strategic management.
First, we see promise in addressing the paucity of research investigating the personality of
other executives beyond the CEO—such as chief financial officers or chief operating officers—that might both affect the organization uniquely or interact with CEO traits. Importantly,
not only would such investigations be relevant within personality but also the topic has promise to advance upper echelons theory more generally by moving beyond investigations of
CEOs alone or aggregations of individuals (i.e., within the TMT). At the same time, the ways
that boards of directors function are different from groups and teams at other levels of the
organization, and incorporating the idiosyncratic concerns within boards could develop our
understanding of both personality and firm governance. For example, directors are primarily
concerned with monitoring and providing resources to firms (Hillman & Dalziel, 2003).
Incorporating dark personality, for instance, may help us to understand how CEOs subvert
governance.
Conversely, Ridge and Ingram (2014) noted that the predominant focus of personality
research in strategy is on dark traits. Thus, the literature ultimately stands to benefit from the
integration of bright traits as well. For instance, agreeable directors may not adequately monitor and challenge a CEO’s actions in the event of an unethical or otherwise damaging event.
On the other hand, hubristic directors, owing to their belief that they are always right, might
be so active in monitoring the actions of the CEO that such behavior undermines the CEO’s
ability to move reasonable ideas forward. This evokes several additional research questions.
For example, can executives be too nice to be effective? Also, how do the personalities of
other stakeholders affect the actions of the CEO?
Finally, another avenue of potential inquiry is to extend personality generally to the organizational level. It may be that firms also develop relatively stable differences akin to founder
or executive personalities, which may overlap, at least partially, with existing constructs such
as culture and routines. However, there are several societal examples of founder or CEO
personality being intimated throughout an organization to the point of influencing individual
employee behaviors. For instance, many of the scandals of the past two decades have been
attributed to leaders who arguably possess many of the dark traits we discuss in this review.
However, in most situations, the CEOs and founders were not alone in engaging in unethical
behavior. Thus, can organizations perhaps develop cultures or routines that directly mimic
executive personalities? As tools to better assess personality of executives advance, inquiries
can extend this work to address our understanding of bright traits.
Entrepreneurship
Recent calls from entrepreneurship researchers suggest that personality is an important
factor to consider in the entrepreneurial process (e.g., DeNisi, 2015; Klotz & Neubaum,
2016), and we need to identify how entrepreneurs differ in aspects of the Big 5 and HEXACO
models from other populations (e.g., Baron et al., 2012; Hmieleski & Baron, 2009; Zhao &
Smith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright 19
Seibert, 2006). Specifically, future research should investigate ways in which entrepreneurs’
personalities are either like or different from other populations. Furthermore, characteristics
of entrepreneurial ventures are often different from those of established organizations. Thus,
personalities of employees and leaders within these organizations may lead to different outcomes (e.g., survival, competitive advantage). That is, new ventures may be affected by
personality traits differently from more established organizations.
As a multifaceted process, the success of entrepreneurial efforts is surely to be affected by
dark personality traits (e.g., Hmieleski & Lerner, 2013). Additional research is needed to
enrich our understanding of the effects of dark personality traits on other facets of the entrepreneurial process. For instance, future research may delve into the influence of personality
on opportunity recognition, development, and evaluation. Might hubristic entrepreneurs be
less likely to adapt to changing environments? Are narcissistic entrepreneurs more likely to
take advantage of risky opportunities? Beyond assessing entrepreneurs’ dark personality
traits, the extant literature would benefit from exploring how investors’ dark personality traits
drive the funding process. Might more narcissistic investors want bigger upside gains to satiate their need for attention, thus affecting which ideas get funded? Entrepreneurship scholars
have a great opportunity to investigate the potential pitfalls of bright traits as well. For example, optimism and self-efficacy may be problematic at certain levels for entrepreneurs
(Hmieleski & Baron, 2008, 2009), but might high levels of conscientiousness help mitigate
those downsides owing to the strong desire for thorough and dutiful action?
Furthermore, understanding the effects of entrepreneurial personality has practical implications. Entrepreneurial personality is a meaningful predictor of new venture outcomes, so
potential investors might be cautious of an entrepreneur who seems overly optimistic or
extremely efficacious. As entrepreneurial education continues to expand in universities, we
see the practical importance of this work extending to the classroom where young developing
entrepreneurs learn to self-assess and avoid pitfalls that come with both bright and dark traits.
Advancing Theory by Integrating Both Bright and Dark Personality
Finally, we see great opportunities for personality research to inform and advance existing
theories that compose management research. Two of the more prevalent theories applied in
personality research are trait activation theory and socioanalytic theory, and each of these
theories have been applied to explain how both bright and dark traits affect important workplace outcomes. However, we see ways of extending our understanding of personality in the
workplace while also advancing these and other relevant theories in management. For
instance, Greenbaum et al. (2017) based their study of Machiavellianism and unethical
behavior in trait activation theory. Their findings advance trait activation theory by providing
a scenario (i.e., abusive supervision) that activates the dubious behaviors tied to
Machiavellianism. Socioanalytic theory offers interesting implications for dark personality.
Can dark personality types effectively get along to get ahead? The theory offers several moderators, such as occupation type and social interaction, that may provide insight to when
these individuals are able to get ahead—regardless of whether they get along. Socioanalytic
theory might also help identify and explain when and why being too high or too low on bright
traits may be problematic. Considering agreeableness as an example, if an individual is too
concerned with getting along, he or she may fail to get ahead.
20 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
We see the potential in applying other prevalent theories of human behavior to the study
of personality in the workplace. In their review of the Dark Triad, O’Boyle et al. (2012)
grounded their hypotheses in social exchange theory. Not only were their findings supported
by social exchange theory but they also advanced the theory by demonstrating the impact that
dark personality has on exchange relationships. This might be a particularly fruitful path for
understanding the effects of both bright and dark traits in groups and teams. Facets of social
cognitive theory, such as moral disengagement (Bandura, 1999), offer excellent avenues with
which to study the deleterious behavioral outcomes tied to dark personality. For instance,
research might address whether some dark traits are more likely to lead to moral disengagement than others (or at all). Ultimately, the future theoretical applications of personality are
innumerable.
Conclusion
On the basis of our review of the literature, we find that personality continues to be a focal
variable in management research. Our review highlights a growing body of research that
challenges the previously held assumptions about bright and dark traits. Indeed, traits traditionally seen as dark may have upsides and vice versa. Thus, we hope that future researchers
see our effort as providing a comprehensive review that opens the door to new research
opportunities both within various domains of management research and beyond the confines
of these domains. There remain many avenues for subsequent research into both the dark and
the bright sides of personality in organizations, and we hope our review offers a challenge to
scholars to seek out these opportunities and advance our understanding of personality across
all disciplines in management.
References
Agle, B. R., Nagarajan, N. J., Sonnenfeld, J. A., & Srinivasan, D. 2006. Does CEO charisma matter? An empirical
analysis of the relationships among organizational performance, environmental uncertainty, and top management team perceptions of CEO charisma. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 161-174.
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. 2014. Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science
review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40: 1297-1333.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., Clark, M. A., & Fugate, M. in press. Congruence work in stigmatized occupations:
A managerial lens on employee fit with dirty work. Journal of Organizational Behavior. doi:10.1002/job.2201
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. 2004. A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English personality-descriptive
adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87: 707-721.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Lee, N. in press. Philosophical foundations of neuroscience in organizational research: Functional
and nonfunctional approaches. Organizational Research Methods. doi:10.1177/1094428117697042
Bagozzi, R. P., Verbeke, W. J. M. I., Dietvorst, R. C., Belschak, F. D., van den Berg, W. E., & Rietdijk, W. J. R.
2013. Theory of mind and empathic explanations of Machiavellianism: A neuroscience perspective. Journal
of Management, 39: 1760-1798.
Bandura, A. 1999. Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 3: 193-209.
Baron, R., Hmieleski, K., & Henry, R. A. 2012. Entrepreneurs’ dispositional positive affect: The potential benefits—and potential costs—of being “up.” Journal of Business Venturing, 27: 310-324.
Baron, R. A., Mueller, B. A., & Wolfe, M. T. 2016. Self-efficacy and entrepreneurs’ adoption of unattainable goals:
The restraining effects of self-control. Journal of Business Venturing, 31: 55-71.
Baron, R., Tang, J., & Hmieleski, K. M. 2011. The downside of being “up”: Entrepreneurs’ dispositional positive
affect and firm performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5: 101-119.
Smith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright 21
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 1991. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 44: 1-26.
Baysinger, M. A., Scherer, K. T., & LeBreton, J. M. 2014. Exploring the disruptive effects of psychopathy and
aggression on group processes and group effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 48-65.
Bell, S. T. 2007. Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92: 595-615.
Belschak, F. D., Den Hartog, D. N., & Kalshoven, K. 2015. Leading Machiavellians: How to translate Machiavellians’
selfishness into pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 41: 1934-1956.
Bernardin, H. J., Cooke, D. K., & Villanova, P. 2000. Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating
leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 232-236.
Boddy, C., Miles, D., Sanyal, C., & Hartog, M. 2015. Extreme managers, extreme workplaces: Capitalism, organizations and corporate psychopaths. Organization, 22: 530-551.
Bradley, B. H., Klotz, A. C., Postlethwaite, B. E., & Brown, K. G. 2013. Ready to rumble: How team personality
composition and task conflict interact to improve performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 385-392.
Brunell, A. B., Gentry, W. A., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Kuhnert, K. W., & DeMaree, K. G. 2008. Leader
emergence: The case of the narcissistic leader. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34: 1663-1676.
Buckels, E. E., Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. 2013. Behavioral confirmation of everyday sadism. Psychological
Science, 24: 2201-2209.
Camerer, C., & Lovallo, D. 1999. Overconfidence and excess entry: An experimental approach. American Economic
Review, 89: 306-318.
Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. 2011. Narcissism in organizational contexts.
Human Resource Management Review, 21: 268-284.
Carter, N. T., Dalal, D. K., Anthony, S., O’Connell, M. S., Kung, M., & Delgado, K. M. 2014. Uncovering curvilinear relationships between conscientiousness and job performance: How theoretically appropriate measurement
makes an empirical difference. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 564-586.
Carter, N. T., Guan, L., Maples, J. L., Williamson, R. L., & Miller, J. D. 2015. The downsides of extreme conscientiousness for psychological well-being: The role of obsessive compulsive tendencies. Journal of Personality,
84: 510-522.
Castille, C. M., Buckner, J. E., & Thoroughgood, C. N. in press. Prosocial citizens without a moral compass?
Examining the relationship between Machiavellianism and unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of
Business Ethics.
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. 2007. It’s all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on
company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 351-386.
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. 2011. Executive personality, capability cues, and risk taking: How narcissistic
CEOs react to their successes and stumbles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56: 202-237.
Chen, G., Crossland, C., & Luo, S. 2015. Making the same mistake all over again: CEO overconfidence and corporate resistance to corrective feedback. Strategic Management Journal, 36: 1513-1535.
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. 2011. The five-factor model of personality traits and
organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 1140-1166.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. 1970. Machiavellianism. Harahan, LA: Academic Press.
Colbert, A. E., Barrick, M. R., & Bradley, B. H. 2014. Personality leadership composition in top management teams:
Implications for organizational effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 67: 351-387.
Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. 2010. Another perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’
accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136: 1092-1122.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. 1992. Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality
Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4: 5-13.
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. 1991. Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of
the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12: 887-898.
Craig, R., & Amernic, J. 2011. Detecting linguistic traces of destructive narcissism at-a-distance in a CEO’s letter
to shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 101: 563-575.
Crook, T. R., Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., & Todd, S. Y. 2008. Strategic resources and performance: A metaanalysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1141-1154.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of
Management, 31: 874-900.
22 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
Cycyota, C. S., & Harrison, D. A. 2006. What (not) to expect when surveying executives: A meta-analysis of top
manager response rates and techniques over time. Organizational Research Methods, 9: 133-160.
Czarna, A. Z., Dufner, M., & Clifton, A. D. 2014. The effects of vulnerable and grandiose narcissism on likingbased and disliking-based centrality in social networks. Journal of Research in Personality, 50: 42-45.
Czarna, A. Z., Leifeld, P., Śmieja, M., Dufner, M., & Salovey, P. 2016. Do narcissism and emotional intelligence
win us friends? Modeling dynamics of peer popularity using inferential network analysis. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 42: 1588-1599.
Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. 2009. The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism
scale. Journal of Management, 35: 219-257.
Dalal, D. K., & Carter, N. T. 2015. Consequences of ignoring ideal point items for applied decisions and criterionrelated validity estimates. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30: 483-498.
De Jong, A., Song, M., & Song, L. Z. 2013. How lead founder personality affects new venture performance: The
mediating role of team conflict. Journal of Management, 39: 1825-1854.
Deluga, R. J. 1997. Relationship among American presidential charismatic leadership, narcissism, and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 8: 49-65.
Deluga, R. J. 2001. American presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for charismatic leadership and rated
performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 12: 339-363.
DeNisi, A. S. 2015. Some further thoughts on the entrepreneurial personality. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 39: 997-1003.
DeShong, H. L., Grant, D. M., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. 2015. Comparing models of counterproductive work behaviors: The five-factor model and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 74: 55-60.
DeShong, H. L., Helle, A. C., Lengel, G. J., Meyer, N., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. 2017. Facets of the Dark Triad:
Utilizing the five-factor model to describe Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 105:
218-223.
De Vries, M. F. K., & Miller, D. 1986. Personality, culture, and organization. Academy of Management Review,
11: 266-279.
Dilchert, S., Ones, D. S., & Krueger, R. F. 2014. Maladaptive personality constructs, measures, and work behaviors.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7: 98-110.
Engelen, A., Gupta, V., Strenger, L., & Brettel, M. 2015. Entrepreneurial orientation, firm performance, and the
moderating role of transformational leadership behaviors. Journal of Management, 41: 1069-1097.
Erdheim, J., Wang, M., & Zickar, M. J. 2006. Linking the Big Five personality constructs to organizational commitment. Personality and Individual Differences, 41: 959-970.
Fanelli, A., Misangyi, V. F., & Tosi, H. L. 2009. In charisma we trust: The effects of CEO charismatic visions on
securities analysts. Organization Science, 20: 1011-1033.
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. 2009. Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives,
top management teams, and boards. New York: Oxford University Press.
Flynn, F. J., & Staw, B. M. 2004. Lend me your wallets: The effect of charismatic leadership on external support for
an organization. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 309-330.
Furguson, E., Semper, H., Yates, J., Fitzgerald, J. E., Skatova, A., & James, D. 2014. The “dark side” and “bright
side” of personality: When too much conscientiousness and too little anxiety are detrimental with respect to
the acquisition of medical knowledge and skill. PLoS ONE, 9(2): e88606. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/
article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088606
Furnham, A., Trickey, G., & Hyde, G. 2012. Bright aspects to dark side traits: Dark side traits associated with work
success. Personality and Individual Differences, 52: 908-913.
Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Balthazard, P. 2010. Visionary communication qualities as mediators of the
relationship between narcissism and attributions of leader charisma. Personnel Psychology, 63: 509-537.
Golec de Zavala, A., Cichocka, A., & Iskra-Golec, I. 2013. Collective narcissism moderates the effect of in-group
image threat on intergroup hostility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104: 1019-1039.
Goncalo, J. A., Flynn, F. J., & Kim, S. H. 2010. Are two narcissists better than one? The link between narcissism,
perceived creativity, and creative performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36: 1484-1495.
Greenbaum, R. L., Hill, A., Mawritz, M. B., & Quade, M. J. 2017. Employee Machiavellianism to unethical behavior: The role of abusive supervision as a trait activator. Journal of Management, 43: 585-609.
Grijalva, E., & Harms, P. D. 2014. Narcissism: An integrative synthesis and dominance complementarity model.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2): 108-127.
Smith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright 23
Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. 2015. Narcissism and leadership: A metaanalytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68: 1-47.
Grijalva, E., & Newman, D. A. 2015. Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): Meta-analysis and
consideration of collectivist culture, Big Five personality, and narcissism’s facet structure. Applied Psychology,
64: 93-126.
Hall, J. R., & Benning, S. D. 2006. The “successful” psychopath: Adaptive and subclinical manifestations of psychopathy in the general population. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy: 459-477. New York:
Guilford Press.
Hambrick, D. C. 2007. Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32: 334-343.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers.
Academy of Management Review, 9: 193-206.
Hare, R. D. 1985. Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 53: 7-16.
Haynes, K. T., Hitt, M. A., & Campbell, J. T. 2015. The dark side of leadership: Towards a mid-range theory of
hubris and greed in entrepreneurial contexts. Journal of Management Studies, 52: 479-505.
Hayward, M. L. A., & Hambrick, D. C. 1997. Explaining the premiums paid for large acquisitions: Evidence of
CEO hubris. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 42: 103-127.
Hayward, M. L. A., Shepherd, D. A., & Griffin, D. 2006. A hubris theory of entrepreneurship. Management Science,
52: 160-172.
Hill, A. D., Kern, D. A., & White, M. A. 2012. Building understanding in strategy research: The importance of
employing consistent terminology and convergent measures. Strategic Organization, 10: 187-200.
Hill, A. D., White, M. A., & Wallace, J. C. 2014. Unobtrusive measurement of psychological constructs in organizational research. Organizational Psychology Review, 4: 148-174.
Hiller, N. J., & Hambrick, D. C. 2005. Conceptualizing executive hubris: The role of (hyper-) core self-evaluations
in strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 297-319.
Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. 2003. Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource
dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28: 383-396.
Hirshleifer, D., Low, A., & Teoh, S. H. 2012. Are overconfident CEOs better innovators? The Journal of Finance,
67: 1457-1498.
Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. 2008. When does entrepreneurial self-efficacy enhance versus reduce firm performance? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2: 57-72.
Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. 2009. Entrepreneurs’ optimism and new venture performance: A social cognitive
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 473-488.
Hmieleski, K. M., & Lerner, D. A. 2013. The Dark Triad: Narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism as
predictors of entrepreneurial entry. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 33(4): 6. http://digitalknowledge.
babson.edu/fer/vol33/iss4/6
Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. 2010. Managerial derailment: Personality assessment and mitigation. In S.
Zedeck (Ed.), American Psychological Association handbook of industrial and organizational psychology:
823-895. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hogan, R. 1983. A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), 1982 Nebraska symposium on motivation: 55-89. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. 1997. Hogan Development Survey. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. 2001. Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 9: 40-51.
Hogue, M., Levashina, J., & Hang, H. 2013. Will I fake it? The interplay of gender, Machiavellianism, and selfmonitoring on strategies for honesty in job interviews. Journal of Business Ethics, 117: 399-411.
Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. 2006. The Dark Triad and normal personality traits. Personality and Individual
Differences, 40: 331-339.
James, L. R. 1998. Measurement of personality via conditional reasoning. Organizational Research Methods, 1: 131-163.
Janis, I. L. 1982. Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Teicher, E. A. 2010. Who is James Bond? The Dark Triad as an agentic social style.
Individual Differences Research, 8: 111-120.
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. 2010. The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the Dark Triad. Psychological
Assessment, 22: 420-432.
24 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. 2014. Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality
traits. Assessment, 21: 28-41.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 80-92.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. 2002. Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 765-780.
Judge, T. A., & Erez, E. 2007. Interaction and intersection: The constellation of emotional stability and extraversion
in predicting performance. Personnel Psychology, 60: 573-596.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. 2002. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 530-541.
Judge, T. A., & LePine, J. A. 2007. The bright and dark sides of personality: Implications for personnel selection in
individual and team contexts. In J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion
to the dysfunctional workplace: 332-355. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. 2006. Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 9: 762-776.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. 2009. The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical
extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly, 20: 855-875.
Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. 2013. Hierarchical representations of the
five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks with
two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 875-925.
Kaiser, R. B., LeBreton, J. M., & Hogan, J. 2015. The dark side of personality and extreme leader behavior. Applied
Psychology, 64: 55-92.
Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. 2010. Get smarty pants: Cognitive ability, personality, and victimization. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95: 889-901.
Klotz, A. C., & Neubaum, D. O. 2016. Research on the dark side of personality traits in entrepreneurship:
Observations from an organizational behavior perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40:
7-17.
Lawrence, B. S. 1997. Perspective: The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8: 1-22.
Le, H., Oh, I., Robbins, S. B., Ilies, R., Holland, E., & Westrick, P. 2011. Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear
relationships between personality traits and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 113-133.
Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., Harter, J. K., & Lauver, K. J. 2010. The problem of empirical redundancy of constructs in
organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112: 112-125.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. 2005. Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the five-factor model and
HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 38: 1571-1582.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. 2014. The Dark Triad, the Big Five, and the HEXACO model. Personality and Individual
Differences, 67: 2-5.
LePine, J. A. 2003. Team adaptation and post change performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 27-39.
LePine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., Crawford, E. R., & Methot, J. R. 2011. A review of research on personality in teams:
Accounting for pathways spanning levels of theory and analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 21:
311-330.
Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. 2008. Who makes acquisitions? CEO overconfidence and the market’s reaction. Journal
of Financial Economics, 89: 20-43.
Manjoo, T. 2010. Erich Schmidt is the nicest guy in tech. Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2010/04/eric_schmidt_is_the_nicest_guy_in_tech.html. Accessed September 8, 2017.
Mannor, M. J., Wowak, A. J., Bartkus, V. O., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. 2016. Heavy lies the crown? How job anxiety
affects top executive decision making in gain and loss contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 1968-1989.
Mathieu, C. 2013. Personality and job satisfaction: The role of narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences,
55: 650-654.
Mathieu, C., Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Babiak, P. 2014. A dark side of leadership: Corporate psychopathy
and its influence on employee well-being and job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 59:
83-88.
Smith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright 25
Michel, J. S., & Bowling, N. A. 2013. Does dispositional aggression feed the narcissist response? The role of
narcissism and aggression in the prediction of job attitudes and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of
Business Ethics and Psychology, 28: 93-105.
Miller, D. 2015. A downside to the entrepreneurial personality? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39: 1-8.
Miller, J. D., Flory, K., Lynam, D., & Leukefeld, C. 2003. A test of the four-factor model of impulsivity-related
traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 34: 1403-1418.
Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Gaughan, E. T., Gentile, B., Maples, J., & Campbell, W. K. 2011. Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A nomological network analysis. Journal of Personality, 79: 1013-1042.
Miller, J. D., Hyatt, C. S., Maples-Keller, J. L., Carter, N. T., & Lynam, D. R. 2016. Psychopathy and
Machiavellianism: A distinction without a difference? Journal of Personality, 85: 439-453.
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Leukefeld, C. 2001. Personality disorders as extreme variants of
common personality dimensions: Can the five-factor model adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of
Personality, 69: 253-276.
Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. 2007. Are we
getting fooled again? Coming to terms with limitations in the use of personality tests for personnel selection.
Personnel Psychology, 60: 1029-1049.
Naemi, B. D., Beal, D. J., & Payne, S. C. 2009. Personality predictors of extreme response style. Journal of
Personality, 77: 261-286.
Navis, C., & Ozbek, O. V. 2016. The right people in the wrong places: The paradox of entrepreneurial entry and
successful opportunity realization. Academy of Management Review, 41: 109-129.
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. 2005. Predictors of objective and subjective career
success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58: 367-408.
O’Boyle, E. A., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. 2012. A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work
behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 557-579.
O’Boyle, E. A., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., Story, P. A., & White, C. D. 2015. A meta-analytic test of the redundancy and relative importance of the Dark Triad and five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality,
83: 644-664.
Oh, I-S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. 2011. Validity of observer ratings of the five-factor model of personality traits:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 762-773.
Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. 2007. In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60: 995-1027.
O’Reilly, C. A., Doerr, B., Caldwell, D. F., & Chatman, J. A. 2014. Narcissistic CEOs and executive compensation.
The Leadership Quarterly, 25: 218-231.
Ou, A., Seo, J., Choi, D., & Hom, P. in press. When can humble top executives retain middle managers? The moderating role of top management team faultlines. Academy of Management Journal. doi:10.5465/amj.2015.1072
Ou, A., Tsui, A. S., Kinicki, A. J., Waldman, D. A., Xiao, Z., & Song, L. J. 2014. Humble chief executive officers’
connections to top management team integration and middle managers’ responses. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 59: 34-72.
Ou, A., Waldman, D., & Peterson, S. in press. Do humble CEOs matter? An examination of CEO humility and firm
outcomes. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206315604187
Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. 2013. Expressed humility in organizations: Implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organization Science, 24: 1517-1538.
Owens, B. P., Wallace, A. S., & Waldman, D. A. 2015. Leader narcissism and follower outcomes: The counterbalancing effect of leader humility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100: 1203-1213.
Patel, P. C., & Cooper, D. 2014. The harder they fall, the faster they rise: Approach and avoidance focus in narcissistic CEOs. Strategic Management Journal, 35: 1528-1540.
Paulhus, D. L. 2014. Toward a taxonomy of dark personalities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23:
421-426.
Paulhus, D. L., Westlake, B. G., Calvez, S. S., & Harms, P. D. 2013. Self-presentation style in job interviews: The
role of personality and culture. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43: 2042-2059.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. 2002. The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36: 556-563.
Paunonen, S. V., Lönnqvist, J.-E., Verkasalo, M., Leikas, S., & Nissinen, V. 2006. Narcissism and emergent leadership in military cadets. The Leadership Quarterly, 17: 475-486.
26 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. 2012. CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and
firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65: 565-596.
Petrenko, O. V., Aime, F., Ridge, J., & Hill, A. 2016. Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR
motivations and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 262-279.
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. 2013. The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management,
39: 313-338.
Plouffe, R. A., Saklofske, D. H., & Smith, M. M. 2017. The assessment of sadistic personality: Preliminary psychometric evidence for a new measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 104: 166-171.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKinzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2016. Recommendations for creating better concept definitions in the organizational, behavioral, and social sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 19: 159-203.
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. 1979. A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45: 590.
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. 1981. The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: Alternative form reliability and further
evidence of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45: 159-162.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. 1988. A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further
evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 890-902.
Ridge, J. W., & Ingram, A. 2014. Modesty in the top management team: Investor reaction and performance implications. Journal of Management, 43: 1283-1306.
Roll, R. 1986. The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers. Journal of Business, 59: 197-216.
Rovenpor, J. L. 1993. The relationship between four personal characteristics of chief executive officers (CEOs) and
company merger and acquisition activity (MAA). Journal of Business and Psychology, 8: 27-55.
Schütte, N., Blickle, G., Frieder, R. E., Wihler, A., Schnitzler, F., Heupel, J., & Zettler, I. in press. The role of interpersonal influence in counterbalancing psychopathic personality trait facets at work. Journal of Management.
doi:10.1177/0149206315607967
Schwenzer, M. 2008. Prosocial orientation may sensitize to aggression-related cues. Social Behavior and
Personality, 36: 1009-1010.
Seth, A., Song, K. P., & Pettit, R. R. 2002. Value creation and destruction in cross-border acquisitions: An empirical
analysis of foreign acquisitions of U.S. firms. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 921-940.
Short, J. 2009. The art of writing a review article. Journal of Management, 35: 1312-1317.
Simon, M., & Houghton, S. M. 2003. The relationship between overconfidence and the introduction of risky products: Evidence from a field study. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 139-149.
Smith, M. B., Wallace, J. C., & Jordan, P. 2016. When the dark ones become darker: How promotion focus moderates the effects of the Dark Triad on supervisor performance ratings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37:
236-254.
Spain, S. M., Harms, P., & LeBreton, J. M. 2014. The dark side of personality at work. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 35: S41-S60.
Suls, J., Martin, R., & David, J. P. 1998. Person-environment fit and its limits: Agreeableness, neuroticism, and
emotional reactivity to interpersonal conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24: 88-98.
Tang, Y., Li, J., & Yang, H. 2015. What I see, what I do: How executive hubris affects firm innovation. Journal of
Management, 41: 1698-1723.
Tang, Y., Qian, C., Chen, G., & Shen, R. 2015. How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir)responsibility. Strategic
Management Journal, 36: 1338-1357.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. 2003. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88: 500-517.
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. 2000. Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency:
Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34: 397-423.
Tosi, H. L., Misangyi, V. F., Fanelli, A., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. 2004. CEO charisma, compensation,
and firm performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 15: 405-420.
Uppal, N. 2017. Moderation effects of perceived organizational support on curvilinear relationship between neuroticism and job performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 105: 47-53.
Varela, O. E., Burke, M. J., & Landis, R. S. 2008. A model of emergence and dysfunctional effects of emotional
conflict in groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12: 112-126.
Verbeke, W. J. M. I., Rietdijk, W. J. R., van den Berg, W. E., Dietvorst, R. C., Worm, L., & Bagozzi, R. P. 2011.
The making of the Machiavellian brain: A structural MRI analysis. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and
Economics, 4: 205-216.
Smith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright 27
Vergauwe, J., Wille, B., Hofmans, J., Kaiser, R. B., & De Fruyt, F. 2017. The too little/too much scale: A new rating
format for detecting curvilinear effects. Organizational Research Methods, 20: 518-544.
Vize, C. E., Lynam, D. R., Collison, K. L., & Miller, J. D. in press. Differences among Dark Triad components: A
meta-analytic investigation. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. doi:10.1037/per0000222
Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M., & Varella, P. 2004. Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: A new application
of upper echelons theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 15: 355-380.
Waldman, D. A., Ramiriez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. 2001. Does leadership matter? CEO leadership
attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management
Journal, 44: 134-143.
Waldman, D. A., Ward, M. K., & Becker, W. J. 2017. Neuroscience in organizational behavior. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4: 425-444.
Wales, W. J., Patel, P. C., & Lumpkin, G. T. 2013. In pursuit of greatness: CEO narcissism, entrepreneurial orientation, and firm performance variance. Journal of Management Studies, 50: 1041-1069.
Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. 2000. Self-other agreement in personality and affectivity: The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78: 546-558.
Whiteside, S. P., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Reynolds, S. K. 2005. Validation of the UPPS Impulsive Behavior
Scale. European Journal of Personality, 19: 559-574.
Wihler, A., Meurs, J. A., Momm, T. D., John, J., & Blickle, G. 2017. Conscientiousness, extraversion, and field sales
performance: Combining narrow personality, social skill, emotional stability, and nonlinearity. Personality and
Individual Differences, 104: 291-296.
Wille, B., De Fruyt, F., & De Clercq, B. 2013. Expanding and reconceptualizing aberrant personality at work:
Validity of five-factor model of aberrant personality tendencies to predict career outcomes. Personnel
Psychology, 66: 173-223.
Wisse, B., Barelds, P. H., & Rietzschel, E. F. 2015. How innovative is your employee? The role of employee supervisor Dark Triad personality traits in supervisor perceptions of employee innovative behavior. Personality and
Individual Differences, 82: 158-162.
Wisse, B., & Sleebos, E. 2016. When the dark ones gain power: Perceived position power strengthens the effect of
supervisor Machiavellianism on abusive supervision in work teams. Personality and Individual Differences,
99: 122-126.
Witt, L. A. 2002. The interactive effects of extraversion and conscientiousness on performance. Journal of
Management, 28: 835-851.
Witt, L. A., Andrews, M. C., & Carlson, D. S. 2004. When conscientiousness isn’t enough: Emotional exhaustion
and performance among call center customer service representatives. Journal of Management, 30: 149-160.
Wowak, A. J., Mannor, M., Arrfelt, M., & McNamara, G. 2016. Earthquake or glacier? How CEO charisma manifests in firm strategy over time. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 586-603.
Wu, J., & LeBreton, J. M. 2011. Reconsidering the dispositional basis of counterproductive work behavior: The role
of aberrant personality. Personnel Psychology, 64: 593-626.
Zagenczyk, T. J., Restubog, S. L. D., Kiewitz, C., Kiazad, K., & Tang, R. L. 2014. Psychological contracts as a
mediator between Machiavellianism and employee citizenship and deviant behaviors. Journal of Management,
40: 1098-1122.
Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. 2006. The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical
review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 259-271.
Zhu, D. H., & Chen, G. 2015a. CEO narcissism and the impact of prior board experience on corporate strategy.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 60: 31-65.
Zhu, D. H., & Chen, G. 2015b. Narcissism, director selection, and risk-taking spending. Strategic Management
Journal, 36: 2075-2098.