Critical Analysis of Dark Triad

Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 449–453

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / p a i d

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

Peter K. Jonason a,⇑, Sarah Slomski b, Jamie Partyka b a School of Psychology, University of Western Sydney, Milperra NSW 2214, Australia b Department of Psychology, University of West Florida, 11000 University PKWY, Pensacola, FL 32504, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 20 June 2011 Received in revised form 1 November 2011 Accepted 7 November 2011 Available online 1 December 2011

Keywords: Manipulation tactics Dark Triad Narcissism Psychopathy Machiavellianism Workplace

0191-8869/$ – see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. A doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.008

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: School of Psych Sydney, Milperra, NSW 2214, Australia.

E-mail address: p.jonason@uws.edu.au (P.K. Jonaso

a b s t r a c t

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

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

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

ll rights reserved.

ology, University of Western

n).

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

Individuals may employ soft (e.g., ingratiation and reason) or hard (e.g., assertiveness and direct manipulations) tactics in pur- suit of their goals (Farmer, Maslyn, Fedor, & Goodman, 1997). The primary distinction between these two types of tactics of influ- ence lies in their forcefulness. Hard tactics are essentially tactics where the user forces their will on another person. One might de- scribe one who uses hard tactics as ‘‘pushy’’. In contrast, soft tactics are designed to convince the target that it is in their best interest to engage in the advocated behavior. Each tactic surely has its place in

 

 

450 P.K. Jonason et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 449–453

the workplace. For instance, in negotiations, hard tactics might be particularly useful in getting something done by a certain date, say a construction project. Soft tactics may permit a subtler form of influence whereby the target actually changes their mind through the use of reason to, say, adopt a paperless workplace.

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

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

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

1 Past work has simply sampled students who had ‘‘some employment history’’ (Lee, Ashton, & de Vries, 2005, p. 184).

2. Method

2.1. Participants and procedures

Four hundred nineteen participants (30% male; 65% female) aged 18–61 years (M = 22.78; SD = 6.95) who had been employed

within the last year were solicited to take part in an online study on work behavior.1 Two hundred and seventy-seven psychology students (28% male; 72% female) aged 18–55 years (M = 21.12; SD = 5.65) from a Southeastern United States university received course credit for participation. One hundred and forty-two volun- teers (61% female; 39% male) from the United States and Canada aged 18–61 years old (M = 25.85; SD = 8.02) participated in the study (sampled through a snowball sampling email). The participants were informed of the nature of the study and gave consent before com- pleting the measures. Upon completion of the online survey, partic- ipants were thanked for their participation and debriefed.

2.2. Measures

The ‘‘Dirty Dozen’’ measure of the Dark Triad was used (Jonason & Webster, 2010). Participants were asked how much they agreed (1 = not at all, 5 = very much) with statements such as: ‘‘I tend to want others to admire me’’; ‘‘I tend to lack remorse’’; and ‘‘I have used deceit or lied to get my way’’. These items were averaged to- gether to create an index of narcissism (Cronbach’s a = .85), Machi- avellianism (a = .79), psychopathy (a = .79), and all three (a = .86).

The use of manipulation tactics was measured with a series of single-items (DuBruin, 1991), asking participants how often (1 = not at all; 5 = very much) they used a given tactic to influence others when at work. These tactics are listed in the tables. Using a combination of face-validity and assessments of internal consis- tency, we created averaged, composites of the above single-items into indexes of soft and hard tactics (Yukl & Falbe, 1990). Soft tac- tics included being a team player, charm, appearance, joking or kid- ding, compromise, exchange of a favor, promise of reward, ingratiation, alliances, and offering compliments (a = .76). Hard tac- tics included threat of appeal, threat of punishment, manipulation of the person, and manipulation of the situation (a = .75).

3. Results

In Table 1, we report descriptive statistics and zero-order corre- lations among the Dark Triad traits and the use of the tactics of influence at work. Tactics like logic/reason and compromise were the primary tactics used by our samples to influence others at work; however, it appears the Dark Triad traits are more strongly correlated with the used of hard tactics as compared to soft tactics. The correlations were higher with the use of hard tactics in psy- chopathy (Fisher’s z = �4.48, p < .01), Machiavellianism (z = �4.21, p < .01), and the Dark Triad composite (z = �4.30, p < .01), but not with narcissism (z = �1.17).

In order to isolate where the correlations between the Dark Triad traits and different tactics of influence were, we conducted multiple regressions with the three traits entered as predictors to control for the shared variance among them (see Table 1, coeffi- cients in brackets). The use of hard tactics was associated with high scores on psychopathy and Machiavellianism while the use of soft tactics was associated with high scores on narcissism and Machia- vellianism. In addition, it was Machiavellianism (11 cases) and psy- chopathy (8 cases) that were associated with the use of more tactics of influence at work than narcissism (5 cases). Critical Analysis of Dark Triad

In Table 2, we report the results of a series of tests for sex dif- ferences in the Dark Triad traits and the use of the manipulation tactics. Men scored higher on the Dark Triad traits than women did. Men were more likely than women were to use the tactics of manipulating the person, manipulating the situation, building alli- ances, threats of appeal, and commonly used hard tactics.

 

 

Table 1 Descriptive statistics, zero-order correlations, and standardized regression coefficients (in brackets) for the relationship between the Dark Triad of traits and workplace manipulation tactics.

Mean (SD) M P N DT

Machiavellianism (M) 2.09 (0.86) – Psychopathy (P) 1.83 (0.79) .56** – Narcissism (N) 2.38 (0.91) .57** .32** – Dark Triad composite (DT) 2.10 (0.69) .88** .75** .82** – Team play 3.72 (0.99) �.05 [�.05] �.11* [�.11] .05 [.12*] �.03 Charm 3.22 (1.16) .39** [.35**] .17** [�.08] .32** [.15**] .37* Appearance 2.75 (1.26) .39** [.27**] .24** [.04] .33** [.17**] .40**

Manipulation of situation 2.45 (1.19) .61** [.47**] .46** [.17**] .39** [.07] .59**

Manipulation of person 2.19 (1.20) .63** [.51**] .49** [.18**] .39** [.04] .62**

Assertiveness 3.27 (1.04) .18** [.11] .13** [.03] .16** [.09] .19**

Joking or kidding 3.53 (1.13) .33** [.27**] .25** [.08] .21** [.04] .32**

Exchange of favors 3.17 (1.17) .23** [.20**] .19** [.09] .10 [�.04] .21** Promise of reward 2.55 (1.12) .13** [.02] .13** [.09] .16** [.12*] .18**

Threat of punishment 1.61 (0.91) .22** [.03] .31** [.27**] .17** [.06] .28**

Ingratiation 1.94 (0.96) .28** [.14*] .26** [.15*] .24** [.11] .32**

Logic or reason 3.98 (0.94) .10* [�.04] .17** [.17**] .11* [.08] .16** Alliances 2.87 (1.18) .37* [.11] .30** [.23**] .19** [.05] .31**

Threat of appeal 1.82 (0.95) .30** [.16*] .32** [.23**] .19** [.02] .34**

Compliments 3.25 (1.15) .23** [.22**] .08 [�.08] .19** [.10] .21** Compromise 3.60 (0.98) .08 [.06] .05 [.02] .05 [.01] .08 Soft tactics 3.06 (0.64) .42** [.29**] .29** [.09] .33** [.14*] .43**

Hard tactics 2.15 (0.92) .64** [.48**] .53** [.24**] .40** [.05] .64**

* p < .05. ** p < .01.

P.K. Jonason et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 449–453 451

Given what we have observed so far, we further analyzed the data by testing for moderation by the sex of the participant and then we tested for mediation effects. We used the Dark Triad com- posite to minimize Type 1 error, because prior work has success- fully used the composite to test for moderation and mediation (Jonason et al., 2009). When we assessed moderation by the sex of the participant across each tactic and both tactical-styles (i.e., soft and hard), we only found one case of moderation by the sex of the participant. Scores on the Dark Triad composite were corre-

Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for sex differences in the Dark Triad traits and the use of tactics of influence at work.

Mean (SD)

Men Women t Cohen’s d

Dark Triad Machiavellianism 2.31 (0.98) 1.98 (0.78) 3.54** 0.37 Psychopathy 2.07 (0.85) 1.72 (0.72) 4.15** 0.44 Narcissism 2.58 (0.94) 2.28 (0.88) 3.05** 0.26 Composite 2.32 (0.74) 2.00 (0.64) 4.38** 0.46

Manipulation tactic Team play 3.76 (0.98) 3.70 (0.99) 0.59 0.06 Charm 3.25 (1.18) 3.21 (1.15) 0.30 0.03 Appearance 2.63 (1.23) 2.80 (1.27) �1.27 �0.14 Manipulation of situation 2.66 (1.19) 2.34 (1.16) 2.50* 0.27 Manipulation of person 2.44 (1.27) 2.07 (1.14) 2.89** 0.31 Assertiveness 3.34 (1.13) 3.23 (0.99) 0.99 0.10 Joking or kidding 3.62 (1.15) 3.49 (1.12) 1.07 0.11 Exchange of favors 3.23 (1.20) 3.15 (1.16) 0.64 0.07 Promise of reward 2.62 (1.15) 2.52 (1.11) 0.87 0.09 Threat of punishment 1.71 (0.95) 1.56 (0.89) 1.51 0.16 Ingratiation 1.97 (0.93) 1.92 (0.98) 0.41 0.05 Logic or reason 4.10 (0.95) 3.92 (0.94) 1.85 0.19 Alliances 3.08 (1.13) 2.78 (1.19) 2.34* 0.26 Threat of appeal 1.97 (1.00) 1.76 (0.92) 2.05* 0.22 Compliments 3.37 (1.16) 3.19 (1.15) 1.38 0.15 Compromise 3.55 (1.00) 3.62 (0.97) �0.71 �0.07 Soft tactics 3.11 (0.65) 3.04 (0.64) 0.96 0.11 Hard tactics 2.35 (0.95) 2.05 (0.88) 3.11** 0.38

* p < .05. ** p < .01.

lated with the use of assertiveness (z = 2.23, p < .05) in men (r = .35, p < .01) but not in women (r = .08).

There are three stipulations one needs to meet in order to test for mediation (see Baron & Kenny, 1986). In Table 2, sex differences were revealed for the use of hard tactics and the Dark Triad com- posite. In Table 1, the Dark Triad composite was correlated with the adoption of hard tactics. The sex difference in the use of hard tactics was fully mediated by the Dark Triad composite (Sobel’s z = 14.59, p < .01). As can be seen in Table 3, while there is a signif- icant sex difference in the use of the hard tactics (Step 1), this sex difference is fully mediated by the participant’s scores on the Dark Triad composite (Step 2). Significant mediation was not found for the use of soft tactics although the prerequisites for mediation analysis were met.

We utilized two different samples. Our volunteer sample was significantly older than our student sample (t(396) = �6.85, p < .01, d = �0.67) and, thus, we did some follow-up analyses using just the hard and soft tactics along with the Dark Triad composite to be sure our analyses were not unduly biased by this fact. First, when we compared the correlations between the Dark Triad com- posite and the use of hard and soft tactics, there were no significant differences. Second, we partialled the age variance associated with participants’ age and all our correlations remained significant (prs < .40, ps < .01). Third, the volunteer sample (M = 1.98, SD = 0.66) scored lower (t(396) = 2.69, p < .01, d = 0.28) than the student sample did (M = 2.17, SD = 0.69) on the Dark Triad. The vol- unteer sample (M = 2.81, SD = 0.69) scored lower (t(396) = 6.08, p < .01, d = 0.64) than the student sample did (M = 3.21, SD = 0.50) on the use of soft tactics. The volunteer sample

Table 3 Hierarchical multiple regression showing the mediation of the sex difference in the adoption of hard tactics by the Dark Triad composite. Critical Analysis of Dark Triad

b t

Step 1 Sex of the participant �.16 �3.11⁄⁄ Step 2 Sex of the participant �.02 �0.48

Dark Triad composite .64 15.99⁄⁄ Note: R2 for Step 1 was .02 but in Step 2 it was .41.

 

 

452 P.K. Jonason et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 449–453

(M = 1.78, SD = 0.83) scored lower (t(396) = 6.32, p < .01, d = 0.67) than the student sample did (M = 2.36, SD = 0.90) on the use of soft tactics. Fourth, the mediation effect replicated when running it separately based on sample-type, where the sex differences in the volunteer (b = �.14, t = �2.26, p < .05) and the student sample (b = �.31, t = �3.88, p < .01) were fully mediated by the Dark Triad composite (bs < .66, ts < 10.60, ps < .01). Therefore, because our central analyses were not obscured by age differences in our sam- ples, it seems reasonable to collapse the samples in this study. Nev- ertheless, more detail can be provided by contacting the first author.

4. Discussion

Toxic or not, employees need to get work done through the mu- tual influence and interaction with others in the workplace, and thus, the topic of workplace influence has received interest for at least 50 years (Ames, 2009; French & Raven, 1959). However, it was not until recently that toxic employees and leaders have come under investigation (Amernic & Craig, 2010; Boddy, 2010; Kiazad et al., 2010). The personality traits of the Dark Triad have been the focus of these investigations, and it is from that literature we take our lead. In the present study, we examined how the Dark Triad traits are associated with the adoption of different tactics of influence. Critical Analysis of Dark Triad

Our paper takes a different approach than most work on these traits in the workforce. Instead of examining the unethical behav- ior (Amernic & Craig, 2010) or deleterious effects (Kessler et al., 2010) of their presence, we demonstrated how the associations be- tween the Dark Triad reflect specific associations with parts of the Triad. The use of tactics like threats primarily reflects differences in psychopathy. The use of charm and overt manipulation of the per- son or the situation reflects differences in Machiavellianism. The use of one’s appearance reflects differences in narcissism. The cor- relations between the Dark Triad traits were stronger in reference to the adoption of hard tactics over soft tactics. It seems to us that the Dark Triad traits may facilitate workplace influence through the use of forceful, aggressive, and ultimately, hard tactics of social influence in the workplace. Such a contention is consistent with work on extreme cases of assertiveness (Ames, 2009), Machiavel- lianism (Kessler et al., 2010; Kiazad et al., 2010), and narcissism (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). In addition, we were able to show that men’s tendency to adopt this approach to workplace manipu- lation as compared to women was fully mediated by the Dark Triad. This suggests these traits are fundamental at facilitating the adoption of this attitude toward others in the workplace. Critical Analysis of Dark Triad

As we noted earlier, traits like the Dark Triad are not uncommon in upper-level management and CEOs (Amernic & Craig, 2010; Gal- perin et al., 2010). This begs interesting questions for future work. How do these employees climb the corporate ladder? Are the manipulation tactics we have spelled out part of their repertoire? Are soft tactics more effective than hard tactics by enabling the user to retain their job while permitting workplace success? Are corporate psychopaths made by work environments focusing on immediate, short-term outcomes? Are corporate psychopaths able to use these tactics to successfully negotiate the workplace or ex- ploit others to attain power that is consistent with their psychol- ogy? Many questions remain about the role the Dark Triad traits play in the workplace. We have provided some insight into the way in which these individuals may behave.

The current study was limited in some ways worth noting. First, we have adopted self-report measures as others have done in this field (Hakstian, Farrell, & Tweed, 2002; Lucas & Friedrich, 2005) but we felt this important for ease of administration for our volunteer sample. Second, we capitalized on two brief measures in order to

encourage our non-student sample to participate. We feel that vol- unteers may suffer subject fatigue more quickly because there is no incentive like in college-student samples. Third, we did not address the relative status of the manipulator or the manipulated (Schries- heim & Hinkin, 1990; Yukl & Tracey, 1992) or the industry or situ- ational fit (Ames, 2009; Boddy, 2010). Fourth, although there were differences by sample-type (e.g., volunteer vs. college-student), we felt these were uninterpretable given differences in age, education- level, work experience, and current work situation. For instance, it could be that the lower scores we found in the Dark Triad traits among our volunteers is spuriously driven by their willingness to help out in research via an email request (i.e., altruism). Moreover, because our primary analyses (i.e., correlation, regression, and mediation) were robust to this distinction we feel confident in reporting the results from a unified sample. Last, we did not con- trol for the jangle fallacy by controlling for the Big Five (Cable & Judge, 2003). Given that prior work suggests the Dark Triad’s asso- ciations with work-outcomes remain after controlling for the Big Five (Clark, Lelchook, & Taylor, 2010; Paunonen et al., 2006) we did not feel this was necessary. Critical Analysis of Dark Triad

Toxic employees, as embodied by the Dark Triad traits, present problems for any company, supervisor, and fellow employee. Learning how those high on the Dark Triad traits behave at work may permit preventative measures to be taken or at least, an understanding of what to expect from them. In this study, we examined the role the Dark Triad traits play in predicting the tac- tics of influence used by those high on the Dark Triad traits. In short, we have shown that those high on these personality traits may use an array of tactics to influence others in the workplace but that men who are high on the Dark Triad may disproportional- ly use hard tactics. Critical Analysis of Dark Triad

References

Amernic, J. H., & Craig, R. J. (2010). Accounting as a facilitator of extreme narcissism. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 79–93.

Ames, D. (2009). Pushing up to a point: Assertiveness and effectiveness in leadership and interpersonal dynamics. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 111–133.

Anderson, C., Spataro, S. E., & Flynn, F. J. (2008). Personality and organizational culture as determinants of influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 702–710.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Boddy, C. R. P. (2010). Corporate psychopaths and organizational type. Journal of Public Affairs, 10, 300–312.

Boddy, C. R. P., Ladyshewsky & Galvin, P. (2010). Leaders without ethics in global business: Corporate psychopaths. Journal of Public Affairs, 10, 121–138.

Brunell, A. B., Gentry, W. A., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Kuhnert, K. W., & DeMarree, K. G. (2008). Leader emergence. The case of the narcissistic leader. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1663–1676.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Managers’ upward influence tactic strategy: The role of manager personality and supervisor leadership style. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 197–214.

Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.

Clark, M. A., Lelchook, A. M., & Taylor, M. L. (2010). Beyond the Big Five: How narcissism, perfectionism, and dispositional affect related to workaholism. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 786–791.

DuBruin, A. J. (1991). Sex and gender differences in tactics of influence. Psychological Reports, 68, 635–646.

Duehr, E. E., & Bono, J. E. (2006). Men, women, and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing? Personnel Psychology, 59, 815–846.

Farmer, S. M., Maslyn, J. M., Fedor, D. B., & Goodman, J. S. (1997). Putting upward influence strategies in context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 17–42.

French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Galperin, B. L., Bennett, R. J., & Aquino, K. (2010). Status differentiation and the protean self: A social-cognitive model of unethical behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 407–424.

Hakstian, R., Farrell, S., & Tweed, R. (2002). The assessment of counterproductive tendencies by means of the California Psychological Inventory. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 58–86.

Harms, P. D., Spain, S. M., & Hannah, S. T. (2011). Leader development and the dark side of personality. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 495–509.

 

 

P.K. Jonason et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 449–453 453

Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 657–674.

Jacobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 331–339.

Jonason, P. K., Koenig, B., & Tost, J. (2010). Living a fast life: The Dark Triad and Life History Theory. Human Nature, 21, 428–442.

Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. W., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The Dark Triad: Facilitating short-term mating in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.

Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Different provocations trigger aggression in narcissists and psychopaths. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 12–18.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 93–108). New York: Guilford Press.

Kessler, S. R., Bandell, A. C., Spector, P. E., Borman, W. C., Nelson, C. E., & Penney, L. M. (2010). Re-examining Machiavelli: A three-dimensional model of Machiavellianism in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1868–1896.

Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., & Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Research on Personality, 44, 512–519.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440–452.

Lamude, K. G. (1994). Supervisors’ influence tactics for handling managers’ resistance. Psychological Reports, 75, 371–374.

Lamude, K. G., & Scudder, J. (1995). Relationship of managerial work roles to tactics used to influence subordinates. Journal of Business Communication, 32, 163–173.

Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & de Vries, R. E. (2005). Predicting workplace delinquency and integrity with the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of personality structure. Human Performance, 18, 179–197.

Levine, E. L. (2010). Emotion and power (as a social influence): Their impact on organizational citizenship and counterproductive individual and organizational behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 4–17.

Lucas, G., & Friedrich, J. (2005). Individual differences in workplace deviance and integrity as predictors of academic dishonesty: Erratum. Ethics and Behavior, 15, 195.

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., L}onnquvist, J.-E., Verkasalo, M., Leikas, S., & Nissinen, V. (2006). Narcissism and emergent leadership in military cadets. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 475–486.

Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 126–134.

Raskin, R. N., & 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.

Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658–673.

Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 617–633.

Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (1990). Influence tactics used by subordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 246–257.

Warren, G. C., & Clarbour, J. (2009). Relationship between psychopathy and indirect aggression use in a noncriminal population. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 408–421.

Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 285–289.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 132–140.

Yukl, G., & Tracey, B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525–535.

Zettler, I., Friedrich, N., & Hilbig, B. E. (2011). Dissecting work commitment: The role of Machiavellianism. Career Development International, 16, 20–35.

 

©Language and Learning Lab, FHEL, Swinburne 2012

 

SAMPLE CRITICAL REVIEW

i) Have a look at the assignment question below

ii) Now read the sample review. Read the accompanying comments on the side as

you go. Is this is a well written review in your opinion?

 

Critical review task

Sherry Turkle, a professor of the Social Studies of Technology, has written extensively about the

effects of technology on human relationships. Read Chapter 1 (Connectivity and its discontents)

from her book Alone Together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other.

What evidence does Turkle provide for her main argument that technology has served to

diminish the quality of our relationships? How persuaded are you by this argument? Critical Analysis of Dark Triad

(1,000 words)

 

 

Review: Turkle, Sherry (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology

and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books (Extract from Chapter 1-

Connectivity and its discontents)

 

The last 20 years have seen a revolution in the way we communicate, all brought about by the

quite extraordinary developments that have occurred in the field of information and

communications technologies.. There is no doubt that the way people interact with each other

nowadays – whether in business, education, in one’s personal life – is drastically different

from the way things were done in the not-so-distant pre-digital past. But have these

developments been positive ones? Can we say that human relations have improved as a result

of these changes?. Sherry Turkle in her book Alone Together: Why We Expect More from

Technology and Less from Each Other is quite sure that this is not the case..

In her study, based on interviews with users of technology across a wide spectrum of society,

Turkle argues.that while it may appear that people are more in touch with each other, the

effect paradoxically of all this new communication is that people are becoming more socially

alienated. “We are increasingly connected to each other”, she states, “but oddly more alone:

in intimacy, new solitudes” (p. 19). Turkle quotes many stories from her interviews to

illustrate her basic argument. In one worrying case, she describes the experience of a woman

who goes to interview someone she is interested in employing as a nanny. When the woman

arrives at the apartment, she meets the person’s flatmate who at the time is texting on her

BlackBerry. The woman asks to see the would-be nanny. Rather than get up to knock on this

person’s door – which is only 15 feet away – the flatmate sends her a text to tell of the

woman’s arrival. The woman is shocked– as is Turkle – that the flatmate would not simply

Comment [T1]: At the beginning of a review, you should provide all the BIBLIOGRPAHICAL INFORMATION about the text you are reviewing. Critical Analysis of Dark Triad

Comment [T2]: These opening sentences give some BACKGROUND to the text that is being reviewed. They introduce the general SUBJECT area covered in the text (the rise of digital communication), and also the main ISSUES being considered (Have these technologies improved our relationships?)

Comment [T3]: At the end of this opening paragraph, the TEXT and its AUTHOR are introduced.

Comment [T4]: Once the text has been introduced, the main task is to SUMMARISE its contents. The first thing you need to do is have a go at outlining the author’s main ARGUMENT; that is, what is the main point they are seeking to make in the text.

Comment [T5]: Along with outlining the author’s ARGUMENT, you should also indicate what type of EVIDENCE is presented in the text to support this ARGUMENT

 

 

 

©Language and Learning Lab, FHEL, Swinburne 2012

 

call out to her. The flatmate objects: “Oh no”, she says. “I would never do that. That would

be too intrusive” (p. 5). Part of the problem, according to Turkle, is that with the various

devices we now use to communicate, we are able to control the contact we have with others,

and in effect to diminish the intimacy of our relationships. We have many ‘friends’, but fewer

genuine friendships, she argues. Critical Analysis of Dark Triad

Another major concern of the author is the way that communications technology has come to

overwhelm our lives. Turkle points out that it used to be the case that we kept computers

busy; now the relationships is reversed, and it is they that keep us busy. This is seen in the

growing phenomenon of multitasking. Turkle quotes a number of examples of this – of a

granddaughter who feels guilty for distractedly doing her emails while skyping with her sick

grandmother; of participants at a conference being focused more on finessing their own

upcoming presentations than paying attention to the speaker whose session they are in. All

this relentless communication, Turkle suggests, has lead to a perverse dependence on the

technology: “whether or not our devices are in use, without them we feel disconnected,

adrift” (p. 16). Critical Analysis of Dark Triad

Turkle’s argument is an interesting and challenging one, and she manages to draw on

numerous real life stories to vividly illustrate her points. Many of these stories are familiar

ones, and capture well the frustrations and annoyances many of us can feel when confronted

with some of the less impressive uses of digital communications. Another example she quotes

is that of a brother who received the important, personal news of his sisters’ engagement (to

be married) via an email to a list of friends. The brother explained in interview that this was

surely news that should have been conveyed intimately in a face-to-face situation, or at least

in a phone call. It is cases like these that drive home Turkle’s main point – that technology

increasingly is reducing our relationships to mere connections: “We would rather text than

talk”, she explains (p 17). Critical Analysis of Dark Triad

There are some problems however, with Turkle’s argument. One of these concerns the

evidence she uses to support her case. As noted, the main data used in her study are

interviews with people from various walks of life about their experiences of digital

technology. We note however, that virtually all the stories recounted in the chapter are ones

that illustrate some personally dissatisfying experience. One has the impression that Turkle is

only interested in the negatives of the virtual world, and in this sense the study seems a biased

one. Contrary to Turkle’s view on things, there is an emerging body of research that suggests

that many people are not necessarily using the online world to supplant their face-to-face

relationships, but instead using it to enhance and supplement these relationships (Pollet

2010). Critical Analysis of Dark Triad

Related to this problem of bias in her study are the limits of its scope. Turkle is a

psychoanalyst, and so in her investigations she chooses to focus on the personal functions –

and dysfunctions – of digital communications. This is an understandable emphasis. Her

background however, prevents her from considering some of the more interesting social and

political dimensions of the new technologies. The recent experiences in a number of

countries, where social media have played a major role in challenging – if not overthrowing –

Comment [T6]: This is a text mainly about ‘concerns’ that the author has about digital technology. The SUMMARY section of the review has been organised around this theme of “major concerns”. When you are writing your own summary of a text you will need to pay attention to how you will STRUCTURE your understanding of he text.

Comment [T7]: This term – “points out” – is an example of a REPORTING EXPRESSION; that is, it is an expression used to report the ideas of the author you are summarising. You need to use these expressions a lot in the SUMMARY section of a review. Other examples of REPORTING EXPRESSIONS in this text are: “ Turkle argues that … “ “ According to Turkle, …” “Turkle suggests … “Turkle quotes a number of examples…”

Comment [T8]: It is always helpful to bring in some DIRECT QUOTE S from the text to support your summary. Note that you do not need to provide an (author, date) reference in a review, only the page no.

Comment [T9]: This sentence signifies the shift from SUMMARISING the text, to providing some EVALUATION of it. You will notice that this initial EVALUATIVE comment is a positive one – “Turkle’s argument is interesting and challenging”.

Comment [T10]: This sentence clearly indicates a shift to the NEGATIVE side of the students’ EVALUATION. Note that the first criticism concerns Turkle’s use of EVIDENCE. You will see that the rest of the review is organised around the various problems the student has identified in Turkle’s text.

Comment [T11]: When EVALUATING a text, it can be a good move to bring in the ideas of OTHER WRITERS to support the point you are making. This is often not a strict requirement, but does serve as evidence of your own wider reading on the topic. To refer to other works will always go down well with your lecturers. Another example of this use of OTHER SOURCES is seen at the end of the next paragraph. Critical Analysis of Dark Triad

 

 

 

©Language and Learning Lab, FHEL, Swinburne 2012

 

repressive governments, suggest that far from bringing about disconnection between people,

these technologies have the capacity to connect and unite people in ways not previously seen

(Shirky 2008).

A final shortcoming of the chapter is that it is hard to know where to go with Turkle’s

argument. In expressing her concerns about the effects these technologies are having on our

relationships, Turkle seems to wish that all these developments had never occurred. This is an

unrealistic position. The new technologies are not going to go away – in fact, one assumes

they will become more and more a part of our lives – and so it seems a slightly pointless

exercise to outline all sorts of reason why life would be better without them.

In summary, while Turkle’s book – at least the extract I read – is an interesting and lively

account of life in the digital age, it does offer a fairly one-sided view of her subject, and fails

to recognise the many benefits that digital culture has brought. One thought I had in writing

this review, is that without these technologies, I would not have had such easy access to

Turkle’s book to read in the first place. Critical Analysis of Dark Triad

Word count 1043

 

References

Pollet, TV, Roberts, SGB, Dunbar, R 2011, ‘Use of Social Network Sites and Instant

Messaging Does Not Lead to Increased Offline Social Network Size, or to Emotionally

Close Relationships with Offline Network Members’, Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, and

Social Networking, vol. 00, pp. 1- 6, EBSCOhost, viewed 11 March 2011

 

Shirky, C 2008, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations.

Penguin Press, New York.

–

Comment [T12]: In the CONCLUSION of your review, you need to summarise your overall response to the text. In this case, the response is overall a NEGATIVE one, although there is some acknowledgment of the text’s POSITIVE features.

Comment [T13]: You will notice that more PERSONAL LANGUAGE is present here, with the use of “I” (first person pronoun). It is usually OK to use more PERSONAL LANGUAGE in review writing. This is because the chief purpose of a review is to express your own personal view of the text you have read. The conclusion is often a good place for some of these more personal reflections.

Comment [T14]: The REFERENCE section should include any additional sources you have referred to in the review. Note that you don’t need to include an entry for the text you are reviewing – this is shown at the beginning of the review.

Comment [T15]: Note that the overall paragraph structure of this particular review is as follows: 1. Introduction 2. Summary – main idea 1 3. Summary – main idea 2 4. Evaluation – positive feature 1 5. Evaluation – negative feature 1 6. Evaluation – negative feature 2 7. Evaluation – negative feature 3 8. Conclusion