Editorial: Back to the future: future advances in organizational dark personality research

This article charts new directions for dark personality research in organizations by moving beyond static trait approaches that oversimplify dark traits as uniformly beneficial for individuals yet harmful for others. The contributions in this Special Issue demonstrate the need for this shift, highlighting the paradoxical nature of dark traits, revealing how their impact is contingent on crucial interactions, such as leader fear of power loss and follower integrity, while also exposing the systemic “demand” for these traits and the significant methodological challenges in their measurement. Building on these articles, we outline five transformative avenues for future research: (1) examining dynamic, state-level trait expressions and non-linear effects; (2) mapping contextual moderators such as organizational culture, power dynamics, and follower characteristics; (3) investigating gendered manifestations and evaluations; (4) exploring group-level and organizational dark personality climates; and (5) advancing methodological innovations through AI-enhanced assessments, experience sampling, multi-method designs and social network analysis. We argue that future research should embrace the complexity of dark traits, examining when they function as assets or liabilities, how they fluctuate across situations, and how they emerge collectively in teams. Reframing dark traits as components of complex adaptive systems, rather than fixed, “villainous” dispositions, can yield actionable insights for selection, intervention, and organizational design, enabling organizations to harness their potential while mitigating their destructive risks.

The contributions to this Special Issue “Heroes or Villains? Advancing the Understanding of Dark Personality Traits in Organizations” have collectively advanced our understanding of dark leadership, steering the conversation from simple condemnation to a more nuanced and complex examination. The articles presented here highlight the paradoxical nature of these traits, exploring how they can be simultaneously toxic and transformative, evoking both fear and fascination. A critical throughline is the power of interactionist perspectives, demonstrating how the impact of a leader's dark traits (e.g. Dark Triad or greed) is contingent on follower characteristics (e.g. integrity, fear, fascination) and vice versa. This collection has not shied away from destructive consequences, linking leader traits to uncertainty and cheating behavior, but also uncovers positive side effects, such as when leader greed prompts employee voice behavior or when founder narcissism improves team survival.

The studies in this Special Issue demonstrate that future organizational psychology research on dark traits can and must embrace a more dynamic, contextualized, and group-level perspective. First, the impact of dark traits waxes and wanes with situational triggers, such as fear of power loss, which can activate abusive behaviors in Machiavellian leaders, as shown by Rus et al. (2026) in this issue. Second, the organizational context – ranging from leadership climate to job demands – can profoundly influence whether dark traits manifest as toxic or are kept in check (Schyns et al., 2022). Indeed, seemingly positive organizational features such as job autonomy can exacerbate the adverse downstream effects of narcissistic leadership, as shown by Oh et al. (2026) in this issue. Reframing dark traits as part of a complex adaptive system, rather than fixed villainy, will uncover new insights.

Prior research consistently linked dark traits to career advancement at the expense of others' well-being, with speculation about how this can occur (e.g. Diller et al., 2021; O'Boyle et al., 2012). The mechanisms are now becoming clearer; for instance, one of the articles in this issue by Oh et al. (2026) provides causal evidence that grandiose narcissism predicts unethical behavior through mediators such as self-serving cognitions. These finer-grained models, which, for instance, distinguish between admiration and rivalry/rivalry and grandiose/vulnerable narcissism (Back et al., 2013), are vital to understanding why dark trait individuals may appear charming in the case of narcissism yet also derogate others (Diller et al., 2026).

Crucially, new evidence suggests that dark traits can undermine the very personal success they are assumed to guarantee. While those high in Machiavellianism or narcissism may indeed gain short-term advantages, such as securing leadership positions and higher salaries (Spurk et al., 2016) or making a strong first impression in job interviews, these gains often fail to translate into long-term success or sustained performance over time (Grijalva and Harms, 2014). Leaders with high psychopathic tendencies can even destroy stakeholder value and hinder firm performance, as evidenced by research linking CEO psychopathy with subsequent declines in company returns (Omar et al., 2019). Fear of power loss may also lead them to choose unwise career paths (Rus et al., 2026).

Furthermore, dark trait outcomes are not uniformly negative for the organization and can yield paradoxical benefits. In the demanding entrepreneurial context, in this issue, Brownell (2026) found that founder narcissism enhanced new venture team survival by reducing burnout, whereas psychopathy undermined it. In other cases, related traits, such as leader greed, can unintentionally stimulate constructive follower behaviors, such as promoting employee voice, only when followers possess a strong integrity identity (Zhou et al., 2026). These studies show that dark traits may facilitate advancement in some scenarios but also carry significant risks of strained well-being and, ultimately, self-sabotage.

A key limitation of past research is treating dark traits as fixed scores. Future advances will reframe them as dynamic processes. One promising avenue is examining state-level expressions and motivational swings in dark traits. Narcissistic motivation can spike when an ego is threatened (Gauglitz and Schyns, 2024), and situational vulnerabilities can activate dark traits. As demonstrated by Rus et al. (2026) in this issue, leaders experiencing power insecurity are more prone to abusive supervision, especially those high in Machiavellianism. Daily events can amplify momentary dark trait expressions (Nübold et al., 2022), and mechanisms like impulsivity link traits to conduct (Oh et al., 2026). Tracking these fluctuations via ESM highlights when traits are most strongly expressed.

Researchers must also be attuned to non-linear associations for some dark traits. For example, a moderate level of narcissism might aid leadership emergence (Gruda et al., 2021a, b), but beyond a certain threshold, negative repercussions increase. An article by Brownell (2026) in this issue found a U-shaped curvilinear relationship between Machiavellianism and burnout in new venture teams, underscoring the need to test non-linear effects, including the use of response surface analysis (RSA) or person-centered approaches (e.g. Nguyen et al., 2021).

Identity work is another critical process. Individuals high in dark traits are often savvy social actors who craft desirable images, excel at charismatic first impressions (Paulhus et al., 2013), or skillfully manage impressions to mask intentions (e.g. Kowalski et al., 2018). This enables them to rise in organizations until discrepancies surface. The complex perceptions they evoke are highlighted in this issue. Diller et al. (2026) demonstrate that dark trait leaders can be perceived as simultaneously threatening and fascinating, while Mercadante et al. (2026) find that dominance-oriented managers may perceive subordinates with dark traits as instrumental allies. Moving to a process view—accounting for states, mechanisms, and identity—yields a richer understanding and opens new avenues for intervention, such as managing triggers that spike entitlement (see Hudson, 2023) or reducing power insecurity (Rus et al., 2026).

Context determines whether dark traits manifest destructively. Hierarchical, cut-throat cultures may reward Machiavellian and narcissistic individuals (Modliba and Treffers, 2025), whereas strong ethical cultures with transparency can curtail them (e.g. Laurijssen et al., 2024). Structure also matters: Oh et al. (2026) found that high job autonomy (i.e. a structural feature often intended to empower employees) can actually exacerbate the link between narcissistic leadership and subordinate cheating.

Team climate and follower composition are also key. An environment of sycophancy can enable a narcissist's worst impulses (Nevicka et al., 2011), while specific follower traits can either buffer or engage with dark leaders (e.g. Gruda et al., 2021a, 2022). In another example, Diller et al. (2026) find that individuals high in dark traits report greater approach behaviors toward dark trait leaders, while Zhou et al. (2026) show that followers with strong integrity respond to leader greed with voice.

Specific role demands may even make dark traits situationally adaptive. In high-pressure crises or the resource-constrained entrepreneurial environment studied by Brownell (2026), traits like bold risk-taking or narcissistic optimism might enhance survival (Nevicka et al., 2013); a similar argument was recently made in a country-level study (Jonason et al., 2025) and within-country study of dark traits as well (Gruda et al., 2024). Macro-level factors, such as national culture, also matter, as most dark trait research is conducted in WEIRD contexts, limiting generalizability (Sedikides et al., 2024).

Finally, the rise of hybrid and fully remote work raises new questions about how dark traits manifest in non-traditional in-person settings, as virtual environments may alter both the behavioral expression of these traits and their detection by others. While the lack of face-to-face oversight may enable toxic behaviors, such as cyber-aggression (Goodboy and Martin, 2015), it may also attenuate other behaviors, including grandstanding (Harms et al., 2024). As hybrid work becomes the norm, understanding these dynamics is essential for developing safeguards.

While men, on average, score higher on dark traits (Gruda et al., 2023; Gruda and McCleskey, 2024; Luo et al., 2023), the primary research gap concerns the gendered manifestations and social reception of dark traits (see Jonason and Davis, 2018). Role congruity theory (Eagly et al., 1992) suggests that agentic dark characteristics (e.g. dominance, aggression) are counterstereotypical for women. Men with high dark traits might evade censure or even be lauded in certain competitive corporate cultures. These biases can influence outcomes: subordinates might be less tolerant of a toxic female boss than a male ^[1] one. This suggests women with dark trait tendencies may face greater social and career penalties than men (Landay et al., 2019).

There may also be qualitative differences in trait expression; women high in Machiavellianism might rely more on subtle, relational aggression if overt dominance is socially sanctioned (Abell and Brewer, 2014). In another example, Landay et al. (2019) found that psychopathic traits were weakly positively related to leadership emergence in men but were negatively associated with leadership effectiveness and transformational leadership in women, which may reflect gendered perceptions and expectations. Future work should examine how dark traits relate to gender role attitudes (Stöcker et al., 2024) and test whether observed relationships between dark traits and outcomes hold similarly across genders.

An exciting frontier is the examination of collective levels of dark traits (Modliba and Treffers, 2025). Personality can be studied as an emergent group property (Giorgi et al., 2021), such as a team's overall level of narcissism (Grijalva et al., 2020). If multiple members, especially the leader, score high on the dark trait, norms may shift toward lower trust and higher competition (O'Reilly et al., 2021). For example, a team high in Machiavellianism might experience information hoarding, while a narcissistic climate might devolve into popularity contests.

Selection and attrition contribute to this. High dark trait leaders might select similar “lieutenants,” and the observation that followers high in dark traits are attracted to dark leaders. Zhou et al. (2026) support this homophily. However, alternative dynamics exist. Mercadante et al. (2026) demonstrate that managers driven by agentic goals may perceive dark subordinates as instrumental allies, which explains their persistence in hierarchies. In addition, leaders high in dark traits also may intentionally “collect” individuals who are easy to dominate, rather than surrounding themselves with similar others (e.g. Grijalva and Harms, 2014).

Dark traits could also be studied at the macro level. For example, Gruda et al. (2024) found positive associations between state-level narcissism and societal health markers. Could the same be true on the organizational level? These population-level results underscore that, at the group level, the prevalence of certain dark traits can shift norms and outcomes in complex ways. The key point for future research is to assess whether we can meaningfully speak of a “dark trait climate” or “group personality profile” and to what extent that level of analysis could yield insights distinct from individual personality. After all, traits do not occur in a vacuum, and neither do organizational outcomes.

Traditional methods of dark trait research (self-report surveys and cross-sectional designs), while helpful, have severe limitations, especially given the deceptive and impression-managing nature of these traits. A critical methodological challenge facing the field is the “measurement trap,” as highlighted by the meta-analytic review of CEO narcissism in this special issue. In their review, Honsová et al. (2026) show that the relationship between narcissism and organizational outcomes varies dramatically across measurement approaches (self-reports, third-party ratings, or unobtrusive measures). This underscores the urgent need for standardized multi-method approaches to enhance validity and comparability.

Future research must broaden its methodological toolbox. We must go beyond cross-sectional data and reduce our reliance on self-reports. As detailed in Table 1, this approach includes the use of qualitative and mixed-methods designs to uncover motives (Gauglitz and Schyns, 2024) and longitudinal and experience-sampling methods (ESM) to capture dynamic processes (Oh et al., 2026; Zhou et al., 2026). Experimental designs are crucial for establishing causality (Rus et al., 2026), while social network analysis (SNA) can map how these traits operate structurally (Burt et al., 2013). Finally, AI-enhanced tools and game-based assessments provide new methods for capturing traits unobtrusively, thereby helping to circumvent the “measurement trap” (Gruda et al., 2021b; Karanatsiou et al., 2022; Röhner et al., 2022).

A popular narrative portrays individuals scoring high on dark traits as villains who succeed at others' expense. However, this one-dimensional view is challenged by emerging evidence that dynamic interactions form outcomes and may not be simply uniformly negative for the organization. Rather than treating dark traits as fixed qualities linearly predicting undesirable behavior, we should examine when, how, and for whom these traits confer advantages or, conversely, become liabilities. The articles in this Special Issue take a step in that direction, providing insights needed to design better organizational cultures and structures. Proactive approaches by the organization are required to both protect against toxic managerial behavior and avoid the twin pitfalls of naivete (e.g. promoting a charming narcissist without caution) and fatalism (i.e. assuming nothing can be done about “bad leaders”). Only then can we move beyond the caricature of the untouchable corporate villains to a more realistic, contextualized understanding.