The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly? A Triarchic Perspective on Psychopathy at Work

• Author: Iris Kranefeld,Gerhard Blickle
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211022667
• Published date: 01 November 2022
• Date: 01 November 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211022667

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2022, Vol. 66(15) 1498 –1522

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X211022667

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

The Good, the Bad, and the

Ugly? A Triarchic Perspective

on Psychopathy at Work

Iris Kranefeld1 and Gerhard Blickle1

Abstract

Does psychopathy have an upside in vocational contexts? Applying the triarchic

model of psychopathy, we propose that the dimensions of boldness, disinhibition, and

meanness have different relations to workplace outcomes. Focusing on boldness and

in line with socioanalytic personality theory, we propose that political skill moderates

the relation between boldness and job performance. Using a sample of 477 target-

coworker pairings, we found interaction effects of boldness and political skill on

contextual and task performance, and the buffering of counterproductive work

behavior. Furthermore, political skill moderated the relation between boldness and

adaptive performance. Disinhibition and meanness were positively correlated with

counterproductive work behaviors, thereby reflecting the dark core of psychopathy.

In sum, boldness is a trait linked to career success in the absence of the other traits

that make up psychopathy as a whole. Furthermore, we encourage the use of the

triarchic model as an overarching framework in vocational contexts.

Keywords

psychopathy, boldness, meanness, disinhibition, political skill, adaptive performance,

job performance, counterproductive work behavior, socioanalytic theory, triarchic

model

While “the Bad” and “the Ugly” seem to match the associations usually evoked by the

term psychopathy, “the Good” seems to be quite a stretch. However, research on “suc-

cessful psychopathy” (Benning et al., 2018) is dedicated to exactly this phenomenon

of functional (i.e., “good”) aspects of psychopathy and how they coexist with its dark

1University of Bonn, Germany

Corresponding Author:

Iris Kranefeld, University of Bonn, Kaiser-Karl-Ring 9, Bonn 53111, Germany.

Email: kranefeld@uni-bonn.de

1022667IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X211022667International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyKranefeld and Blickle

research-article2021

Kranefeld and Blickle 1499

side, that is, “the Bad” and “the Ugly.” The notion that psychopathy might exist out-

side of prisons sparked a body of research concerning its implications for the work-

place over the past two decades (Landay et al., 2019; O’Boyle et al., 2012).

Nevertheless, it is still difficult to paint a homogenous picture of how psychopathy

affects work outcomes (e.g., job performance) in positive or negative ways due to the

multitude of different concepts, models, and measures. Therefore, in this research, we

aimed to clarify the role of psychopathic personality traits at work by employing the

triarchic model of psychopathy, which represents a synthesis of different historic and

contemporary conceptualizations (Patrick et al., 2009). In particular, we aimed to shed

light on the upside of psychopathy by focusing on the potentially most functional

facet: boldness.

The Triarchic Model of Psychopathy

When looking for a precise delineation of psychopathy, it quickly becomes apparent

that there is no commonly shared understanding of the construct (Lilienfeld et al.,

2015). Broadly speaking, “Psychopathic personality, or psychopathy, is a constellation

of personality traits and associated behaviors characterized by superficial charm, dis-

honesty, egocentricity, manipulativeness, risk-taking, and a lack of empathy and guilt

masked by apparent normalcy” (Smith & Lilienfeld, 2013, p. 206). In line with recent

research, psychopathy does not imply a taxonomic classification by which individuals

would be sorted into the categories psychopath or non-psychopath (Guay et al., 2007)

but rather it captures a configuration of continuous personality traits by which indi-

viduals vary on each dimension of psychopathy (Patrick & Drislane, 2015).

Understanding how these traits manifest at the workplace can help generate implica-

tions both for personnel selection and personnel development (Neo et al., 2018; Smith

& Lilienfeld, 2013). Patrick et al. (2009) analyzed various conceptualizations and

measures of psychopathy to identify overarching themes. Their analyses resulted in

the triarchic model of psychopathy, comprising three core dimensions: boldness, dis-

inhibition, and meanness. These dimensions each reflect a unique phenotype (e.g.,

behavioral expressions) and are differentially interrelated.

Boldness captures the facets courage, dominance, intrepidness, optimism, persua-

siveness, resilience, self-confidence, social assurance, and tolerance for uncertainty

(Patrick, 2012). Meanness represents the callous-unemotional facet of psychopathy. It

refers to the affective dysfunction (reduced feelings of guilt and empathy, reduced

attachment to others, Viding & Kimonis, 2018) and the antisocial behavior that all

models of psychopathy agree on (e.g., Hare, 1991; Levenson et al., 1995; Lilienfeld &

Widows, 2005). Behaviorally, meanness entails antagonism, rebelliousness, excite-

ment seeking, proneness to cruelty, and a lack of empathy (Patrick et al., 2009; Viding

& Kimonis, 2018). Disinhibition entails the “pervasive lack of behavioral restraint

[which] is central to all historic and contemporary conceptions of psychopathy”

(Nelson & Foell, 2018, p. 127). It reflects a general impairment of inhibitory control,

resulting in impulsivity, irresponsibility, nonplanfulness, and the egocentric pursuit of

immediate gratification (Patrick et al., 2009).