Comparing models of counterproductive workplace behaviors: The Five-Factor Model and the Dark Triad

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Examined best personality model to describe counterproductive workplace behaviors.

  • Five Factor Model predicted counterproductive work behaviors better than Dark Triad.

  • Agreeableness and conscientiousness provide the most parsimonious model.

Abstract

Research has examined the relationship of personality traits with counterproductive workplace behaviors, with many studies focusing on the constructs of the Dark Triad (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy). The utilization of a general model of personality traits, the Five Factor Model, may provide a more parsimonious explanation for these behaviors. To assess this, the current study used path analysis to determine which personality constructs best describe these behaviors within a sample of undergraduate students working at least 20 hours per week (n = 163). Overall, the results indicated that the best-fitting and most parsimonious model for describing counterproductive workplace behaviors was one in which only agreeableness and conscientiousness were included.

Introduction

Counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs) result in billions of dollars lost per year (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). One avenue of individual differences related to workplace misconduct is personality traits (Elliot, 2010, Hastings and O’Neill, 2009, Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). Understanding the relationship of personality traits with CWBs may enable companies to develop better screening methods when hiring, allowing businesses to potentially avoid future conflicts and reduce decreases in productivity. The present study examined two personality models that have been used in studies of CWBs: The Five Factor Model (FFM) and the Dark Triad. Specifically, the purpose of the study was to compare the two models in predicting levels of CWBs.

CWBs lead to several negative outcomes, resulting in both financial losses (e.g., paying or accepting kickbacks, fraud) and damaging the image of the corporation (e.g., discriminating against coworkers; Jones, 1997). The current study investigates one specific type of CWB: social undermining behavior. This is defined as “behavior intended to hinder, over time, the ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and favorable reputation” (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002, p. 332). These behaviors have been further differentiated with regard to the target of the behavior. Interpersonal CWBs hurt another individual physically or emotionally (e.g., making fun of or harassing a coworker), whereas organizational CWBs decrease the productivity of the company more directly (e.g., drinking alcohol while working, working slowly).

A meta-analysis by Kish-Gephart et al. (2010) suggests that personality is an area of individual differences that may be important for understanding who may engage in CWBs. Personality traits have been linked to a number of problems (Hopwood et al., 2009, Mullins-Sweatt and Widiger, 2010, Ozer and Benet-Martinez, 2006), including occupational impairment. One empirically supported model of general personality that may help elucidate this relationship is the Five-Factor Model (FFM). The FFM is a personality model that includes five domains: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The FFM has been used to study work related constructs, including workplace bullying (Lind, Glaso, Pallesen, & Einarsen, 2009), workplace accidents (Clarke & Robertson, 2008), salary earnings (Nyhus & Pons, 2005), and job satisfaction (Jong, Velde, & Jansen, 2001). Therefore, this comprehensive model of personality may be useful in assessing the relationship between personality and CWBs. To date, however, this model is less commonly used, as the Dark Triad constructs are more commonly utilized within this research area.

Paulhus and Williams (2002) coined the term “Dark Triad” to describe three “socially aversive personalities” within the literature: Machiavellianism, subclinical narcissism, and subclinical psychopathy. These constructs tend to be moderately correlated and share the features of egocentricity, callousness, and manipulation (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006). Though there is empirical evidence for the overlap of these constructs (Fehr et al., 1992, McHoskey et al., 1998), more recent findings support the perspective of three distinct trait domains (Jones and Paulhus, 2010, Lee and Ashton, 2005, Paulhus and Williams, 2002). Studies have suggested that agreeableness (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), interpersonal manipulation, and callous affect (Jones & Figueredo, 2013) were the only common traits shared by the Dark Triad constructs. Interpersonal manipulation and callous affect have been described by others (e.g., Widiger & Lynam, 1998) as facets of the FFM agreeableness/antagonism domain (low straightforwardness and low tender mindedness), providing evidence that the core of the Dark Triad constructs can be described well within a general trait model.

Machiavellianism is characterized by cynical, pragmatic, misanthropic, and immoral beliefs, emotional detachedness, agentic and self-beneficial motives, strategic long-term planning, manipulation and exploitation, and deception (Christie and Geis, 1970, Rauthmann and Will, 2011). Narcissism includes an inflated view of the self, fantasies about control, success, and admiration, and the desire to have self-love reinforced by others (Kernberg, 1989, Morf and Rhodewalt, 2001). Lastly, psychopathy is characterized by glib charm, shallow emotions, parasitic lifestyles, and may include criminal activities (Hare & Neumann, 2009).

Previous research has consistently found relationships with the Dark Triad and CWBs. In a recent meta-analysis, O’Boyle and colleagues (2012) found that traits of the Dark Triad were differentially related with CWBs. Individuals high in Machiavellianism engaged in more interpersonal forms of CWBs (e.g., maltreatment of coworkers and betrayal). Individuals high in narcissism engaged in CWBs such as embezzlement, bullying, and white-collar crimes. Lastly, psychopathy was associated with more violent, dangerous, and aggressive workplace behaviors.

Each of the Dark Triad constructs has been related to specific FFM domains. Furnham, Richards, Rangel, and Jones (2014) provide a summary of 11 studies that assessed the FFM in relation to the Dark Triad. There is strong evidence for a relationship between the Dark Triad constructs with low agreeableness and neuroticism. Additionally, Machiavellianism and psychopathy show strong relationships with low conscientiousness while narcissism and psychopathy relate to high extraversion. This indicates that the FFM may be able to simplify the multifaceted constructs of the Dark Triad by dismantling the constructs (and explaining their common variance) into the domains of general personality functioning. In fact, a recent meta-analysis by O’Boyle and colleagues (2014) suggests that the domains of the FFM accounted for much of the variance in the constructs of the Dark Triad.

To date, however, the relationship of the FFM with CWBs has received little investigation. Berry, Ones, and Sackett (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of CWBs and FFM personality traits. The findings indicated neuroticism relates to organizational and interpersonal CWBs, agreeableness strongly relates with interpersonal CWBs, and conscientiousness strongly relates with organizational CWBs. Therefore, the FFM may be a useful and applicable theory to employ as it is both parsimonious and comprehensive.

The current study examines the relationship of the FFM and the Dark Triad with CWBs. Path analysis was chosen to analyze the data as a parsimonious way of simultaneously estimating several regression models as well as evaluating competing models in predicting CWBs. The current study had three specific hypotheses. First, interpersonal CWBs would be significantly related to low agreeableness, high neuroticism, and low conscientiousness, while organizational CWBs would be significantly related to low conscientiousness. Both types of CWBs would be significantly positively related to all three Dark Triad constructs. Second, the FFM would provide a better fit to the data in predicting CWBs. Third, the model with the best fit would be one in which agreeableness and conscientiousness are the two sole predictors for interpersonal and organizational CWBs.

Section snippets

Participants

Participants were undergraduate psychology students at a Midwestern university recruited using an online system. Only those who endorsed that they were currently working at least 20 h a week on a prescreener questionnaire were invited to complete the study. A total of 191 participants completed the study, with 28 participants dropped due to invalid responses. Participants (n = 163) had an average age of 20.89 years (SD = 4.01, range = 18–53), and were primarily female (n = 117; 71.8%) and Caucasian

Analytic strategy

AMOS 21 (Arbuckle, 2012) was utilized to estimate path analyses to determine the model that offered the best fit to the data. Model fit was evaluated using CFI, TLI, AIC, and RMSEA. CFI and TLI values of .95 or higher and RMSEA values of .06 or below represent a model that has close fit to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Lastly, the AIC allows for a direct comparison between models, with lower values indicating a better model fit (Akaike, 1987).

Results

Table 1 presents the correlations, means, and standard deviations of the variables. As predicted, all three constructs of the Dark Triad were significantly related to both types of CWBs. Agreeableness and conscientiousness were negatively correlated with both types of CWBs while neuroticism was positively related to organizational CWBs.

Next, path analyses were conducted to assess which of the two personality models was better able to predict interpersonal and organizational CWBs. This allows

Discussion

While the FFM is a general model of personality, the Dark Triad encompasses three multifaceted constructs: Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism. These constructs were assessed in relation to CWBs targeted towards other individuals (interpersonal CWBs) and towards the organization (organizational CWBs) within a working sample of undergraduate students. The current study was novel in that it examined the FFM and Dark Triad in predicting interpersonal and organizational CWBs using path

References (47)

  • R.J. Bennett et al.

    Development of a measure of workplace deviance

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2000)
  • C.M. Berry et al.

    Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2007)
  • G. Blickle et al.

    Some personality correlates of business white-collar crime

    Applied Psychology: An International Review

    (2006)
  • D.S. Chiaburu et al.

    The Five-Factor Model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2011)
  • R. Christie et al.

    Studies in Machiavellianism

    (1970)
  • S. Clarke et al.

    An examination of the role of personality in work accidents using meta-analysis

    Applied Psychology: An International Review

    (2008)
  • P.T. Costa et al.

    Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual

    (1992)
  • J.J. Dahling et al.

    The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale

    Journal of Management

    (2009)
  • M.K. Duffy et al.

    Social undermining in the workplace

    Academy of Management Journal

    (2002)
  • R.T. Elliot

    Examining the relationship between personality characteristics and unethical behaviors resulting in economic crime

    Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry

    (2010)
  • B. Fehr et al.

    The construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty years later

  • N.G. Glover et al.

    The five-factor narcissism Inventory: A five-factor measure of narcissistic personality disorder

    Journal of Personality Assessment

    (2011)
  • R.D. Hare et al.

    Psychopathy: Assessment and forensic implications

    Canadian Journal of Psychiatry

    (2009)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text