Managers frequently encounter employees who seem driven solely by self-interest. These individuals may appear charming on the surface but can be manipulative behind the scenes, or they might display an inflated sense of superiority. Leading such employees presents a significant challenge. A heavy-handed approach might backfire, causing them to retaliate or disengage. Conversely, a too-soft approach might allow them to exploit the organization.
A study published in The Journal of Psychology investigates this specific dynamic. It examines how employees with “dark” personality traits react to different leadership styles. The research focuses specifically on how a leader’s behavior can unintentionally trigger negative actions from these employees. The goal of the investigation was to understand which management styles provoke hostility and which ones might actually harness the energy of difficult employees for positive results.
Defining the Dark Triad
To understand the study, it is necessary to understand the personality traits involved. Gloria Xiaocheng Ma, a researcher at Erasmus University Rotterdam, led the team that conducted this investigation. They focused on a cluster of personality traits known in psychology as the “Dark Triad.”
The Dark Triad consists of three distinct but related traits. The first is narcissism. Narcissists are characterized by a sense of entitlement, grandiosity, and a constant need for admiration. The second trait is Machiavellianism. Individuals with this trait tend to be manipulative, cynical, and strategic. They focus on their own gain and may disregard moral concerns to achieve their goals. The third trait is psychopathy. This is considered the most severe of the three. It is marked by high impulsivity, a lack of empathy, and low anxiety regarding consequences.
While these traits are often viewed negatively, previous research suggests they are not always detrimental to career success. Some individuals with these traits climb corporate ladders quickly due to their desire for power. The research team wanted to know how these traits manifest in day-to-day work behavior depending on who is in charge.
The Agency and Communion Framework
The researchers used a psychological framework called “Agency and Communion” to categorize leadership styles. In this context, “Agency” refers to getting ahead. It involves goal setting, assertiveness, competence, and control. A leader high in agency focuses on tasks, standards, and hierarchy.
“Communion” refers to getting along. It involves warmth, helpfulness, trustworthiness, and building relationships. A leader high in communion focuses on the welfare of the team and interpersonal harmony.
By mixing these two dimensions, the researchers identified four leadership styles. “High Agency-High Communion” leaders focus on both goals and people. “High Agency-Low Communion” leaders focus strictly on tasks and may appear cold or demanding. “Low Agency-High Communion” leaders prioritize relationships over tasks. Finally, “Low Agency-Low Communion” leaders are largely absent or indifferent to both results and people.
The Cultural Context
The setting of the study is significant. Most prior research on the Dark Triad comes from Western, individualistic nations where personal autonomy is highly valued. This study took place in China.
China is generally considered a collectivistic culture. In such an environment, group harmony and interpersonal relationships are often prioritized over individual distinction. The researchers hypothesized that the cultural pressure to maintain harmony might influence how dark personality traits surface. They suspected that a harsh, task-focused leadership style might clash severely with the cultural expectation of warmth, provoking a stronger negative reaction from employees with dark traits.
Designing the Investigation
The researchers recruited 534 full-time Chinese employees for a three-part online survey. The participants came from various industries, including finance, education, and government.
The study employed a time-lagged design to ensure the data was robust. In the first phase, participants completed a personality assessment. This established their baseline levels of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.
One week later, the same participants reported their general work behaviors. They answered questions about their performance, their engagement, and whether they engaged in “counterproductive work behaviors.” These behaviors include actions like wasting company materials or intentionally working slowly. They also reported on their emotional exhaustion and intentions to quit.
In the third and final phase, the 332 participants who remained in the study were presented with a specific leadership scenario. They were randomly assigned to read a description of one of the four leadership styles described earlier.
After reading the scenario, the participants were asked to imagine working for that specific leader. They then rated how they would behave and feel under that supervision. This method allowed the researchers to isolate the effect of the leadership style on the employee’s likely behavior.
The Triggering Effect of Leadership
The researchers analyzed the data to see if specific leadership styles acted as a “trigger” for dark personality traits. This concept relies on Trait Activation Theory. This theory suggests that personality traits are not always active. They lie dormant until a specific situation calls them forth.
The analysis revealed distinct patterns for how employees with different traits responded to the scenarios. Machiavellianism showed a strong interaction with leadership style. When employees with high Machiavellian traits were presented with a “High Agency-Low Communion” leader, their negative behaviors spiked.
A “High Agency-Low Communion” leader is someone who pushes hard for results but shows little care for the employees. Under this type of supervision, Machiavellian employees were significantly more likely to report they would engage in counterproductive work behavior. They also reported higher levels of emotional exhaustion.
The data indicated that Machiavellians are highly sensitive to their environment. When they perceive a leader as threatening to their autonomy or well-being—as a cold, task-master leader might be—they retaliate. They engage in deviant behaviors to restore a sense of control or to protect their own interests.
Differing Reactions Among the Triad
The other two traits behaved differently. Narcissism showed a “bright side” in this context. Employees scoring high in narcissism reported higher work engagement and lower emotional exhaustion in certain leadership situations. Their desire for status and achievement appeared to drive them to perform, regardless of the social environment.
Psychopathy, however, displayed no such positive trade-off. High levels of psychopathy were linked to lower job performance and higher emotional exhaustion across the board. The leadership style did not significantly change these outcomes. This suggests that the negative work behaviors associated with psychopathy are stable and less dependent on the situation than those associated with Machiavellianism.
The Role of Relationship-Focused Leadership
The study also evaluated the general effectiveness of the leadership styles within the Chinese cultural context. The results showed a clear preference for “Communion,” or relationship-focused behavior.
Employees in the “High Agency-High Communion” scenario reported the best outcomes. They indicated they would have higher performance, more organizational citizenship behavior (helping others), and less desire to quit.
Interestingly, the “Low Agency-High Communion” style also produced positive results. This style involves a leader who is warm and friendly but perhaps not very directive regarding tasks. In Western studies, this style is often seen as ineffective. In this Chinese sample, however, it reduced turnover intention and exhaustion. This finding aligns with the cultural emphasis on social relatedness. Even without strong task direction, the presence of a supportive relationship buffered employees against stress.
Specific Outcomes for Business
The analysis provided several actionable insights for managing personnel, particularly in collectivistic cultures or diverse teams.
First, the “High Agency-Low Communion” style appears to be the most dangerous when managing employees with Machiavellian tendencies. A manager who focuses strictly on the bottom line while neglecting interpersonal warmth acts as a situational cue. This cue activates the manipulative and retaliatory nature of the Machiavellian employee. These employees may perceive such leadership as a breach of the psychological contract. In response, they may subtly sabotage work or withdraw their effort.
Second, the study highlights the protective value of warmth. In a business culture that values connection, showing genuine concern for employee welfare is not just a “nice to have.” It is a functional tool that suppresses negative behaviors. When leaders demonstrated high communion, even Machiavellian employees were less likely to act out.
Third, the study suggests that not all “dark” traits are unmanageable. Narcissists, while potentially difficult, are motivated by achievement. Their drive can be channeled into work engagement. Psychopathy remains the most problematic trait for organizations, as it was consistently linked to poor outcomes regardless of the management style employed.
Caveats and Considerations
The researchers noted limitations to their work. The study relied on participants reading scenarios and predicting their behavior. While this is a standard method in psychological research, real-world reactions can differ from hypothetical ones. Additionally, the study relied on self-reported data. Employees with dark traits, particularly narcissists, may inflate their own performance ratings.
The cultural context is also a specific variable. The findings regarding the effectiveness of “Low Agency-High Communion” leadership may not transfer to highly individualistic cultures where task achievement is prized above social harmony.
![[Adobe Stock]](https://www.psychologyofselling.pro/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/artificial-intelligence-350x250.jpg)
