When the dark ones become darker: How promotion focus moderates the effects of the dark triad on supervisor performance ratings

• Author: Patti Jordan,Mickey B. Smith,J. Craig Wallace
• Date: 01 February 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2038
• Published date: 01 February 2016

When the dark ones become darker: How

promotion focus moderates the effects of the dark

triad on supervisor performance ratings

MICKEY B. SMITH

1

*, J. CRAIG WALLACE

2

AND PATTI JORDAN

3

1

College of Business, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, U.S.A.

2

Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A.

3

Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, U.S.A.

Summary The current study adds to a growingbody of research on dark personality traits by investigating the moderating

role of promotion focus on the relationships among dark triad traits and facetsof job performance. Specifically,

we investigated the effectsof the dark triad (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy)on supervisor

ratings of performance, and the moderating effect promotion focus has on those effects. Using field data, we

surveyed 549 employees from a manufacturing company in the USA and obtained supervisor ratings of task

performance and helping behavior for each employee. We found support for multiple hypotheses, which

suggests that managers rated narcissistic and psychopathic employees as having poorer task performance and

psychopathic employees as engaging in fewer helping behaviors than employees low in those traits.

Furthermore, promotion focus strengthened these negative relationships. We did not find these effects for

Machiavellianism. Implications of these findings for future dark personality research as well as the practical

implications for managers and organizationsare discussed. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: dark triad; regulatory focus; performance appraisal

Things are never so bad they can’t be worse.

Humphrey Bogart

Recently,scholars have begun to incorporate additionalpersonality traits, namelydark personality traits, into thecon-

versation onpersonality–performance relat ionships. “Dark side,”oraberrant personality, representsa domain outside of

normal personalitytraits (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006)or “bright side”personality traits(Spain, Harms, & Lebreton, 2014).

Within the organizational behavior literature, the Dark Triad (DT) has become the dominant paradigm for dark side

traits (Furnham,Richards, & Paulhus, 2013). Indeed, several recent reviews and a meta-analysis illustratethe explosion

of research that has occurred since Paulhus and Williams (2002) established Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psy-

chopathy as the DT. Nonetheless, DT research is still in its youth, and for everyfinding from prior studies, we develop

more questions. Namely, we have evidence of simple relationships among the dark triad traits and facets of perfor-

mance, but researchers have only begun to scratch the surface to explain the mechanisms and boundary conditions of

those relationships (O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012). In this study, we advance the conversation on the

DT–performance relationship by focusing on the effects of the DT on supervisor ratings of performance. Furthermore,

we seek to uncover situations in which supervisors’“dark”perceptions of DT employees become even darker.

Dark side traits represent undesirable tendencies and dispositions that result in adverse behavioral tactics and mo-

tives (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Specifically, the DT consists of traits that have been shown to have detrimental

effects at work. For instance, employees characterized by the DT engage in more counterproductive work behaviors

(Wu & Lebreton, 2011), make unethical decisions (Greenbaum, Hill, Mawritz, & Quade, 2014; Kish-Gephart,

*Correspondence to: Mickey B. Smith, Management, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, U.S.A. E-mail: mickey.

smith@usm.edu

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 20 May 2014

Revised 28 April 2015, Accepted 30 May 2015

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 236–254 (2016)

Published online 3 July 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2038

Research Article

Harrison, & Treviño, 2010), and take unnecessary and ill-advised risks (Crysel, Crosier, & Webster, 2013). On the

other hand, the DT traits have been shown to be negatively related to employee outcomes such as

organizational citizenship behaviors (Becker & Dan O’Hair, 2007; Kessler et al., 2010) and job satisfaction

(Bruk-Lee, Khoury, Nixon, Goh, & Spector, 2009). Further, O’Boyle et al. (2012) found decreases in job per-

formance related to increases in both Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Although statistically significant,

O’Boyle and colleagues cautioned that the negative DT–performance relationships were weak and likely influ-

enced by other factors. We contend that one such factor is the source of the performance measure (i.e., super-

visor). A large portion of the evaluation of employees’performance is determined by subjective ratings

provided by supervisors that are sensitive to bias (Gravina & Siers, 2011; Heidemeier & Moser, 2009;

Hoffman, Nathan, & Holden, 1991), and the DT presents unique challenges to supervisor ratings of perfor-

mance due to bias created by interacting with aversive employees (Furnham et al., 2013). Appraisal bias has

a well-documented effect on how raters view and subsequently score ratee performance irrespective of actual

performance (DeNisi & Smith, 2014; Roberson, Galvin, & Charles, 2007; Sutton, Baldwin, Wood, & Hoffman,

2013). In the current study, we argue that the DT creates a negative emotional response within supervisors that leads

to biased performance appraisals.

Overall, the extant res earch casts the work-related ef fects of the DT in a negative light, yet we do not have a

firm understanding of the boundary conditions of the DT–performance relationship (Spain et al., 2014). Cur-

rently, we know little about when the DT traits are more or less harmful for employee outcomes, only that there

appear to be variables t hat moderate the weak effects observed by prior researchers (O’Boyle e t al., 2012). In

the current study, w e investigate promotio n focus as a moderator of the r elationship between the DT and per-

formance. Take for instance the interaction of narcissism and promotion focus, which is t ied to a risky bias and

tactics of increased self-promotion (Higgins, 1997, 1998). The narcissistic employee welcomes attention and

seeks opportunities that promote self-aggrandizement (Busch & Hofer, 2012; Foster, Shenesey, & Goff,

2009) while also taking unnecessary risks (Raskin & Hall, 1979). We propose that the joint effect of narcissism

and promotion focus will make this employee even more likely to take unnecessary risks to avoid missed

opportunities for se lf-promotion and advance ment. Thus, motivational or ientations, such as promot ion focus, are

important factor s to consider as moderators o f the DT–performance relationship. In line with the proposition that

supervisors are biased by the DT, when DT employees possess a promotion foc us, which exaggerates t he DT,

supervisors are ev en more likely to observe the DT chara cteristics and respond wi th biased performance r atings.

This study serves three purposes. The first is to build upon prior theory and research on the DT–performance re-

lationship. The existing research suggests that the DT traits are well suited as predictors of undesirable outcomes

(Furnham et al., 2013), and empirical relationships are supportive (O’Boyle et al., 2012). However, there is a dearth

of research on positive outcomes such as citizenship performance (Spain et al., 2014), and the link between the DT

and task performance is relatively unclear. While we do understand a portion of the DT–outcome relationships,

studying DT and positive outcomes will allow us to further our understanding by empirically “rounding out”

DT–performance relationships (i.e., complementing the extant DT–negative outcome relationships by examining

DT–positive outcome relationships). Subsequently, we investigate the impact that the DT has on both task

performance and hel ping behaviors within one s tudy. Our second goal is to take a nuan ced view of performance

by focusing on supervisor ratings of task and helping performance. The existing work suggests that DT em-

ployees may perfor m at different levels depe nding upon the way perfo rmance is measured. For in stance, Ricks

and Fraedrich (1999) found that Machiavellians self-reported higher sales volumes, yet had poorer supervisor

ratings of performance. The current study is grounded in the research on appraisal bias, which we contend ex-

plains why supervis or ratings are negatively i mpacted by the DT. Finally, s everal scholars have call ed for more

research into the fact ors that moderate the effec ts of the DT on facets of performan ce (e.g., O’Boyle et al.,

2012). One such inter esting construct is the moti vational orientation of p romotion focus, and we offe r the first

investigation of the moderating role of promotion focus on the DT–performance relationship. Promotion focus

appears to be gaining a reputation as a hi ghly desirable and “bright”motivational orientation because of its

overwhelming, but not undisputed, positive relationships with positive outcomes (task performance, citizenship

WHEN THE DARK ONES BECOME DARKER 237

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 236–254 (2016)

DOI: 10.1002/job