Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/Dark triad and power seeking motivation

Dark triad and power seeking motivation:
How do dark triad traits influence power seeking motivations?

Overview

Picture this ... Figure.1 Stereotypical manager. Dark triad leaders can appear charming and charismatic. Imagine your manager, John Smith, the kind of executive who seems destined for the top. Charismatic in meetings and quick with praise for higher-ups, he is unflinching in his pursuit of the next opportunity. But beneath the charm lies a colder, callous core. John cultivates allies only when they can advance his position, claims credit for successes he only partly contributed to, and manoeuvres ruthlessly to place himself in control whenever departmental upheaval strikes. Recognition isn’t enough John craves influence and is willing to sacrifice colleagues’ trust, team cohesion, and even ethical norms to secure it. In less than two years, he rises to a position of power not through technical brilliance, but through a deliberate blend of manipulation, self-promotion, and emotional detachment. It is a corporate ascent fuelled by the traits of the dark triad.

At a glance, the three traits push towards power for slightly different reasons and via different routes some chase visibility and prestige, while others favour control and dominance. This matters because the route to power tends to predict the kind of leadership we get. See Figure 2. (Maner, 2017; Schattke & Marion-Jetten, 2022; Jonason & Zeigler-Hill, 2018).

The dark triad; Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy (see Figure 2) all share a callous manipulative core that gravitates toward power seeking behaviours due to the possibility of influence that offers instrumental control, status and freedom from constraint. Although the traits have been found to overlap, each of the traits' power-seeking motivation manifests differently: narcissism often fuels status and prestige in hopes to validate grandiosity; Machiavellianism prioritises strategic dominance and resource control; and psychopathy pursues high risk coercive influence with minimal regard for costs to others (Paulhus and Williams, 2002). Research has shown that power motivations can be differentiated into dominance, prestige and leadership (Schattke and Marion-Jetten, 2022). Dominance relates most strongly to Machiavellianism (narcissism and psychopathy as well but to a lesser extent) and predicts counterproductive work behaviour, whereas leadership related power motives can predict a prosocial motivation (Schattke and Marion-Jetten, 2022).

Figure 2. The Venn diagram shows the overlapping callous and manipulative core of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy alongside distinct edges that tend to map onto different routes to power (e.g., prestige for narcissism; dominance for Machiavellianism/psychopathy), which helps anticipate leadership consequences (Cheng et al., 2022; Schattke & Marion-Jetten, 2022).

Power-seeking leaders high in Dark Triad traits are indeed capable of delivering short-term wins, they have the potential to decisively cut through red tape or boldly push initiatives that timid leaders avoid. However, they tend to erode trust, psychological safety, and ethical norms over time. Their influence often shapes workplace climates that normalise manipulation and fear, leading to higher employee turnover, increased conflict, and even incidents of abusive supervision. Team performance can suffer as these leaders undermine collaboration and morale in pursuit of their own agenda. In the long run, the presence of dark triad leadership threatens governance and risk management in organisations. Particularly in volatile contexts where a charming façade or ambiguous circumstances can mask malicious intent. It becomes crucial to distinguish leader emergence (who attains positions of power) from leader effectiveness (who succeeds in leading well). Individuals high in dark triad traits often excel at the former but struggle at the latter, undermining sustained and healthy outcomes for their teams (Bueno-de la Fuente et al., 2025).

In other words, who rises is not always who leads well. Meta-analytic work shows that traits tied to the dark triad can help with leader emergence but often show mixed or negative links with leader effectiveness once in the role (Grijalva et al., 2015; Landay et al., 2019).

Focus questions How do the Dark Triad traits motivate people to seek power, and what might be the consequences? How do the Dark Triad traits manifest in power-seeking motivation? How does the Dark Triad affect the workplace, specifically through leadership effectiveness? How might corporations identify and mitigate the negative effects? In leadership roles, are Dark Triad traits a useful tool or a toxic weapon?

Theoretical underpinnings

Understanding the link between power motivations and the Dark Triad traits requires an analysis of relevant psychological theory. More than two decades ago, Paulhus and Williams (2002) first coined the term “Dark Triad” to describe the trio of socially aversive personalities Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy. The research that followed confirmed that these traits are empirically distinct constructs, yet they show moderate intercorrelation and shared core of antagonism. In trait terms (see [1]Big 5 Traits), all three dark traits are strongly associated with low Agreeableness, meaning that individuals high in the Dark Triad characteristics tend to be distrustful, uncooperative and lacking in empathy (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The following theories, evolutionary psychology, social learning theory, trait theory, and self-determination theory frame power-seeking through four psychological lenses. These lenses explain how antagonistic, low-agreeableness profiles are drawn to influence and why that can look effective at first but costly over time. (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Bueno-de la Fuente et al., 2025).

Evolutionary psychology

From an evolutionary perspective, power motives can be viewed as adaptive strategies shaped by natural selection. Dominance over others may have historically awarded access to resources, mates and higher social status thus improving reproductive success (Jonason & Ferrell, 2016). Behaviours like aggression and manipulation might have been naturally selected in certain contexts because they offered short-term advantages in survival, despite their social costs. In this context, Dark Triad traits can be understood as context-dependent dominance strategies for instance, Machiavellian exploitation or psychopathic boldness may yield short-term power advantages (Jonason & Ferrell, 2016). From an evolutionary scope the dark traits persist partly due to the viable strategies of status attainment in certain contexts.

Social learning theory

[2]Albert Bandura’s social learning model posits that people learn behaviours by observing others and the outcomes of their behaviours (Bandura, 1977). When authority figures or peers use manipulative or conceive strategies to achieve goals and are visibly rewarded for those tactics, observers are likely to imitate such strategies (particularly younger or impressionable observers). Classic demonstrations of this effect (e.g., [3]Bobo doll experiment) show that observing aggressive behaviour being rewarded can normalise such aggressive or exploitative tactics for the observer. Thus, social learning processes may reinforce “dark” behaviours. For example, a child watching an older sibling bully peers and subsequently gain social status or attention may internalise the lesson that those tactics “work”, therefore adopting the manipulative tactics themselves. In organisations, employees may witness leaders being rewarded (e.g., promotions or pay-rise) for results they achieved using unethical power-plays, therefore learning that such cutthroat strategies are acceptable and effective in the workplace (Uppal & Bansal, 2023). Over time, this modelling can create a cycle in which Dark Triad style behaviours become normalised, especially in workplaces that not only tolerate but incentivise them.

Trait theory

Personality trait perspectives pose that people have stable dispositions that influence their behaviour across time and contexts (Farrukh et al., 2018). Early trait leadership research proposed that certain enduring traits, for example dominance, extraversion and assertiveness, characterise those who attain powerful positions (Mann, 1959; Northouse, 2009). People high on these traits tend to seek control and status for instance, a person with a high need for dominance will likely habitually pursue leadership roles and authority (Jonason & Zeigler-Hill, 2018). The Dark Triad traits themselves are similarly characterised as broad, relatively stable dispositional factors that predispose people to exploit avenues of power, making them somewhat constant personal characteristics influencing power motivations (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Jonason & Zeigler-Hill, 2018). The Dark Triad traits, from a trait theory view, tend to have lasting drives to “get ahead” propelling individuals forward at the expense of social relationships.

Self-determination theory

Self-determination theory argues that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are basic psychological needs. Dark triad profiles often show need frustration, particularly elevated frustration around autonomy/competence for psychopathy (Hughes et al., 2023). This can push towards more coercive routes to power (Hughes et al., 2023). Narcissism may show weaker links to frustration because inflated self-views can mask deficits, sustaining prestige-seeking even when feedback is poor (Hughes et al., 2023; Grijalva et al., 2015). Overall, chronic need frustration can motivate seizing power as a compensatory strategy.

Mechanisms and mediators of dark power motivation

In addition to broad psychological theories there are specific mechanisms that link to the Dark Triad power motivations. Explicit power motives, individual leadership motives and cultural influences can mediate how dark traits translate into power seeking behaviour.

Explicit power motives

Empirical research has highlighted that some power motivations, and thus influence, can be expressed via different preferences or routes such as coercive control (abusive dominance), prestige (status gained by earning admiration) or general leadership aspirations. Dominance motives are a desire to control or intimidate others and have been found to strongly correlate with Machiavellian and psychopathic traits, while prestige motives correlate more with narcissism (Schattke & Marion-Jetten, 2022). Pure leadership motives (general desire to lead and take responsibility) show only a weak link to narcissism and little to no connection to Machiavellianism or psychopathy (Schattke & Marion-Jetten, 2022) These findings suggest that different power aspirations map onto different dark dispositions. Meaning that those who seek power via tools of fear, coercion or intimidation tend to exhibit higher Machiavellian or psychopathic tendencies, while those who utilise charm, popularity or respect exhibit more narcissistic traits (Schattke & Marion-Jetten, 2022). Aligning with these findings, the dominance oriented “might makes right” approach would be more appealing to Machiavellian and psychopathic personalities whereas a prestige-oriented approach would resonate more with narcissistic personalities.

Motivation to lead

Motivation to lead (MTL) can be examined as a more specific construct that describes an individual’s desire to assume leadership roles. There are three main types of motivation seen in MTL, intrinsic/affective identity (leading because of enjoyment), social-normative (leading because of a sense of duty) and altruistic (leading for selfless reasons) (Chan & Drasgow, 2001). Research shows that for individuals high in Dark Triad traits, the affective identity and social-normative forms of MTL are often the key drivers of leadership intent, while altruistic motives are markedly weak (Kennedy et al., 2021). Kennedy and colleagues (2021) found that narcissistic traits have unique predictive power for leadership intentions, primarily by boosting already internalised motives, often exceeding predictive power of traits like extraversion. Practically, this means dark personality individuals (particularly narcissists) habitually pursue leadership because they intrinsically enjoy holding power and often feel entitled to wield the authority. A narcissist’s strong affective identity motive and grandiose sense of entitlement fuel their leadership aspirations, whereas altruistic service-oriented leadership motives tend to be absent (Kennedy et al., 2021). Work by Schyns (2023) discussed the importance of this pattern within narcissism highlighting that the specific facet of narcissistic admiration (desire for praise and status) can drive individuals to seek power because of the positive attention, dominance and status it brings over others. This emphasises the complex role of individual identity and values in power motivation which raises the notion that different cultures (e.g., individualistic vs collectivist) might accentuate different motives.

Case study ... I’ve always felt comfortable taking charge. When a project stalls, I hate the waiting, someone needs to make decisions, and that someone is usually me. My director says I have “presence,” and I agree. The team’s launch went off the rails last quarter, and I volunteered to “own” the recovery. Honestly, I could see it coming, if I’d been in charge earlier, we wouldn’t have missed the deadline. I keep a short list of people I trust to get things done, and I make sure they’re looped in early. I don’t advertise every detail to everyone it just slows things down. When a peer questioned my approach in the review, I highlighted our wins and let leadership see who really drove those outcomes. I like the spotlight it’s where leaders belong. I’m fine mentoring juniors when it’s strategically useful, but I won’t sink hours into hand-holding that doesn’t move the needle. If I lead the next product stream, the team will finally have the direction it needs, and I’ll have the platform to show what I can do. Link to evidence A high affective-identity motivation to lead is evident in “I’ve always felt comfortable taking charge ... someone needs to make decisions,” which reflects enjoyment of leading and uniquely predicts leadership intentions beyond broader traits, especially among narcissistic dispositions (Kennedy et al., 2021). Framing leadership as an obligation (“someone needs to make decisions”) signals high social-normative motivation to lead coloured by entitlement, a pattern that often co-occurs with dark-triad profiles (Kennedy et al., 2021; Jonason & Zeigler-Hill, 2018). The dismissal of “hand-holding” indicates low non-calculative (altruistic) motivation to lead, a reduced willingness to incur personal costs for the group (Kennedy et al., 2021). Finally, “I like the spotlight it’s where leaders belong” relates to narcissistic admiration, linking leadership striving to visibility and recognition (Schyns, 2023; Grijalva et al., 2015).

Cross-cultural manifestations

Cultural norms shape how Dark Triad traits are expressed and rewarded. For example, Ma et al. (2021) conducted a comparative study of employees in the United States and China found that psychopathy traits in leaders uniformly undermines work outcomes in both cultures, while Machiavellianism was associated with relatively more positive work behaviours in China than in the U.S. In the same study, narcissism showed a “brighter” side in the U.S., demonstrating a positive link to work engagement and a negative link to exhaustion and boredom (Ma et al., 2021). This suggests that individualistic Western cultures tolerate or even reward grandiose narcissistic behaviour more than collectivist cultures. This is perhaps due to Western norms and the greater value placed on assertiveness and personal ambition (Ma et al., 2021). Contrastingly, in some Eastern cultures a certain degree of Machiavellian cunning has been suggested to be more functionally integrated into accepted social hierarchies (Hussain et al., 2021). Specifically, behaviours that might be labelled as “manipulative” in some cultures could be viewed as practical in others.

It is important to note that even if Dark Triad traits appear to have culturally positive correlations with certain outcomes these traits still carry ethical and interpersonal costs. Cross-cultural research underscores that while culture may moderate the expression and thus consequences of dark traits, they do not fully neutralise the antagonistic nature of such traits.

Power-seeking motivation: What drives the dark triad?

At a basic level power motivation is the desire to control or have significant influence over others and the surrounding environment. In classic motivation research, power motivation can be directed toward personal dominance or socialised goals (Frieze & Boneva, 2001). Dark Triad personalities characteristically lean toward the personal dominance end of this spectrum, seeking power for the instrumental benefits it provides them rather than helping others (Hughes et al., 2023). This allure of power felt by these individuals lies in the freedom, control and status it promises, which compensates for or feeds their natural grandiosity, need for control or lack of empathy.

The pursuit of power by Dark Triad individuals often comes with consequences for those around them. People higher on Dark Triad traits tend to harm peers and organisations via self-interested choices, manipulation, and information control thus raising conflict and dysfunction in teams (O’Boyle et al., 2012; Upadhyay & Baber, 2023). Most members of the Dark Triad profile are self-centred and manipulative, which can lead to distrust, increased conflict and dysfunctional team dynamics in their workplaces (Upadhyay & Baber, 2023). For example, a conceptual review Upadhyay and Baber (2023), noted that Dark Triad individuals are disinclined to collaborate, instead using coercion or deceit to advance themselves, which ultimately erodes team cohesion. Moreover, high levels of Machiavellianism or psychopathy in leaders are strong predictors of a toxic work climate, characterised by hostility, fear and unethical practices (Bueno-de la Fuente et al., 2025).

When dominance-driven power motives prevail, relationships and ethical standards erode, demonstrated in workplace settings through counterproductive work behaviour, abusive supervision, and fragile trust climates (O’Boyle et al., 2012; Tokunbo & Borisade, 2025).

Dark triad in the workplace

The workplace is a primary arena where the interplay between personality and power unfold, leadership is the stage on which Dark Triad traits can have especially profound effects (Normore & Brooks, 2016). It is important to consider how Dark Triad traits influence leadership behaviour and effectiveness and discuss what organisations can do to guard against the potential damage.

Leadership

In workplace settings Dark Triad traits in leadership roles can be linked to a host of destructive behaviours. Studies have found that such leaders are more likely to make ruthless, opportunistic business decisions, especially when personal gain is at stake. For example, D’Souza and de Lima (2015) analysed opportunistic decision making in management and found that individuals scoring high in Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy tended to choose more exploitative business strategies, prioritising short-term advantages over ethical considerations. This suggests that these leaders may disregard moral norms if it means consolidating their own power/wealth.

Over time, Dark Triad leaders can deliver quick wins (e.g., cutting costs or outmanoeuvring competitors), but at the cost of long-term sustainability by damaging trust and increasing economic risk for their organisations (Jonason & Zeigler-Hill, 2018). Employees under Dark Triad leaders often report lower job satisfaction and higher stress, while the organisation may see an increase in unethical practices, even financial misreporting due to leader’s influence (Tokunbo & Borisade, 2025).

In practice, the three traits lean on different playbooks. Narcissism banks on prestige and visibility, Machiavellianism on quiet control and deal-making, while psychopathy is predisposed to risk and pressure which helps explain why the same tactics can win fast but fray trust over time (see Table 1; Maner, 2017; Schattke & Marion-Jetten, 2022).

Table 1. Key power-seeking tendencies and leadership implications of Dark Triad traits

Dark Triad trait	Power-seeking tendencies	Leadership implications (pros)	Leadership implications (cons)
Narcissism	Seeks prestige and status to affirm grandiosity; craves recognition and admiration. Often takes bold initiative to showcase talent and gain influence.	Charismatic and confident, can inspire initial followership and pursue ambitious goals.	Ego-driven decision-making, poor feedback acceptance, likely to alienate others; over time may create a culture of self-promotion and fragile team trust.
Machiavellianism	Seeks dominance and control through strategic planning, manipulation, and alliance-building. Power is a means to personal gain; willing to use deception or flatter superiors to climb ranks.	Politically astute, adept at negotiation and long-term strategy; can impose discipline and order.	Micromanaging and exploitative, undermines morale and loyalty; ethical boundaries are easily crossed, potentially leading to scandals or high turnover as trust erodes.
Psychopathy	Seeks power via coercion and fearlessness; comfortable with risk and using intimidation. Desires autonomy and freedom from rules, often acting impulsively to seize opportunities.	Cool under pressure, unafraid to make hard choices (e.g., cutting losses, drastic changes) in crisis situations.	Lacks empathy and guilt, which can result in abusive supervision, rule-breaking, and a toxic work climate. High risk of unethical or illegal behaviours causing long-term organizational harm.

Note. Based on Boddy (2011); Maner, 2017; D’Souza & de Lima (2015); Grijalva, Harms, Newman, Gaddis, & Fraley (2015); Jonason & Zeigler-Hill (2018); Landay, Harms, & Credé (2019); O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel (2012); Paulhus & Williams (2002); Schattke & Marion-Jetten (2022); Tokunbo & Borisade (2025).

Mitigation of negative effects

Given the potential damage Dark Triad leaders can cause, organisations are increasingly interested in strategies to mitigate these negative effects. One important approach is preventative screening and selection. Using validated personality assessments during hiring decisions can help flag extreme levels of Machiavellianism, narcissism or psychopathy (Upadhyay & Baber, 2023). While such traits should never disqualify a candidate, awareness of them would allow organisations to make informed choices or employ safeguards. Some companies have introduced integrity tests specifically to detect manipulative or toxic tendencies, thereby attempting to avoid placing high Dark Triad individuals in positions of unchecked power (Upadhyay & Baber, 2023).

Beyond selection, building a strong ethical culture and accountability systems in crucial in mitigation. Organisations can implement clear codes of conduct, checks and balances on decision making (e.g., requiring group decisions for high-stake choices) as well as review processes where independent parties critically evaluate major decision to prevent unethical actions. By establishing a culture that values transparency and accountability, the influence of a single toxic leader can be limited (Tokunbo & Borisade, 2025). Regular leadership training and coaching is also a useful tool. In some cases, individuals with Dark Triad traits can learn to manage their impulses and recognise the importance of ethical behaviour if such values are strongly reinforced (Tokunbo & Borisade, 2025).

It's important to note that interventions must be ongoing. The allure of power means that Dark Triad personalities may continually test boundaries. Thus, organisations will benefit from fostering an environment where ethical prosocial behaviour is rewarded while misconduct is swiftly addressed (Tokunbo & Borisade, 2025; Upadhyay & Baber, 2023).

Test yourself

1 A team lead says, “No one lets me do my job properly,” and pushes for unilateral control. Which need state and trait pairing best fits this pattern? Need satisfaction; Narcissism Need frustration (autonomy/competence); Psychopathy Need satisfaction; Machiavellianism Need frustration (relatedness); Narcissism 2 Which cross-cultural pattern is most consistent with the chapter? Culture fully neutralises dark-trait risks. Narcissism shows relatively “brighter” links in the U.S.; Machiavellianism can look more functional in China; psychopathy is broadly harmful across contexts. Psychopathy is beneficial in collectivist cultures but harmful in individualist cultures. All dark traits are uniformly positive across cultures. 3 Which interventions reduce the organisational risks of Dark Triad leadership? (Select all that apply.) Integrity testing in selection Single-person sign-off on high-stakes decisions 360-degree feedback and independent review gates (red-team) Clear codes of conduct and enforced accountability 4 A new exec is charismatic and craves recognition, sets bold goals, but reacts poorly to criticism and chases visibility. Which row of Table 1 fits best? Machiavellianism, dominance and control via strategy Psychopathy, coercion, fearlessness, rule-minimising Narcissism, prestige/status seeking and visibility 5 Which statement best explains why Dark Triad leaders can deliver quick wins yet harm long-term outcomes? Dominance/prestige tactics can cut through red tape and raise visibility short term, but they erode trust, psychological safety, and ethics over time. Because dark traits always improve both short- and long-term outcomes. Because organisations with strong governance fully neutralise dark-trait effects. Because employees prefer coercive climates in the long run.

Conclusion

The dark triad traits (Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy) play a significant role in how and why certain individuals seek power. These traits can present advantages in the competition for leadership, helping some people rise quickly through the ranks. However, extensive research highlights that the same Dark Triad characteristics that facilitate gaining power often undermine the effective and ethical use of power (Jonason & Zeigler-Hill, 2018; Bueno-de la Fuente et al., 2025). Leaders high in Dark Triad traits tend to prioritise personal dominance over collective wellbeing, leading to toxic work environments and poor long-term outcomes.

Understanding the mechanisms behind this, from explicit power motives to cultural motivators, provides valuable insights for personal development and organisational practice. It reminds us that motivation for power is not inherently bad. What matters is where that motivation originates, whether it stems from dark and exploitative impulses or from altruistic and prosocial intentions. By recognising Dark Triad tendencies and implementing evidence-based mitigation strategies organisations, and individuals, can better navigate the fine line between effective leadership ambition and destructive power seeking.

See also

• China (Wikiversity)
• Dark tetrad and emotion (Book Chapter, 2023)
• Dark tetrad and motivation (Book chapter, 2023)
• Evolutionary psychology (Wikiversity)
• Leadership (Wikiversity)
• Narcissism (Wikiversity)
• United States of America (Wikiversity)
• Self-determination theory (Wikiversity)

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.

Boddy, C. R. (2011). Corporate psychopaths: Organisational destroyers. Palgrave Macmillan.

Bueno-de la Fuente, C., Núñez-Rodríguez, S., de la Fuente-Anuncibay, R., & González-Bernal, J. J. (2025). Relationship between leadership, personality, and the dark triad in the workplace: A systematic review. Behavioral Sciences, 15(3), Article 297. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15030297

Chan, K.-Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.481

Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2022). Dominance and prestige: A tale of two hierarchies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211063160

D’Souza, M., & de Lima, G. A. S. F. (2015). The dark side of power: The dark triad in opportunistic decision-making. Advances in Scientific and Applied Accounting, 8(2), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.14392/asaa.2015080201

Farrukh, M., Alzubi, Y., Shahzad, I. A., Waheed, A., & Kanwal, N. (2018). Entrepreneurial intentions: The role of personality traits in the theory of planned behaviour. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12(3), 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-01-2018-0004

Frieze, I. H., & Boneva, B. S. (2001). Power motivation and motivation to help others. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power (pp. 15–30). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315783055-6

Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Narcissism and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12072

Hussain, G., Samreen, F., Wan Ismail, W. K., Riaz, A., & Azhar, J. (2021). From Machiavellianism to unethical behavior: A cross-level examination of cultural factors. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 24, e46. https://doi.org/10.1017/SJP.2021.43

Hughes, D. J., Adie, J. W., Kratsiotis, I. K., Bartholomew, K. J., Bhakta, R., & Martindale, J. (2023). Dark personality traits and psychological need frustration explain future levels of student satisfaction, engagement, and performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 102, Article 102273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102273

Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(2), 331–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.006

Jonason, P. K., & Ferrell, J. D. (2016). Looking under the hood: The psychogenic motivational foundations of the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 324–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.039

Jonason, P. K., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2018). The fundamental social motives that characterize dark personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 132, 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.031

Kennedy, J. C., Chan, K. Y., Ho, M.-H. R., Uy, M. A., & Chernyshenko, O. S. (2021). Motivation to lead as mediator of relations between the dark triad, Big Five, and leadership intention. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 675347. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.675347

Landay, K., Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2019). Shall we serve the dark lords? A meta-analytic review of psychopathy and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000357

Ma, G. X., Born, M. P., Petrou, P., & Bakker, A. B. (2021). Bright sides of dark personality? A cross-cultural study on the dark triad and work outcomes. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 29(3–4), 510–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12342

Maner, J. K. (2017). Dominance and prestige: A tale of two hierarchies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 526–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417714323

Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56(4), 241–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044587

Normore, A. H., & Brooks, J. S. (Eds.). (2016). The dark side of leadership: Identifying and overcoming unethical practice in organizations. Emerald.

Northouse, P. G. (2009). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Sage.

O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025679

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6

Schattke, K., & Marion-Jetten, A.-S. (2022). Distinguishing the explicit power motives: Relations with dark personality traits, work behavior, and leadership styles. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 230(4), 290–299. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000481

Schyns, B. (2023). What motivates narcissistic individuals to lead? The role of identity across cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 205, 111123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112107

Tokunbo, T., & Borisade, B. (2025). The dark triad in organizational leadership: A systematic review of impacts and interventions. Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science, 13(1), 32–36.

Upadhyay, D., & Baber, H. (2023). The concept of the dark triad: Effect on organizational outcomes and navigating strategies. Changing Societies & Personalities, 7(4), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.15826/csp.2023.7.4.256

Uppal, N., & Bansal, A. (2023). A study of trickle-down effects of leader Machiavellianism on follower unethical behaviour: A social learning perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 207, 112171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112171

Zeng, G., Lee, S. A., Ouyang, H., & Serik, M. (2022). The psychogenic motivational foundations of the dark triad: An evolutionary perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 194, 111666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111666

External links

• Albert Bandura’s social learning model (Rumjaun, 2025)
• Bandura's model (Wikipedia)
• Big 5 Traits (Zillig, Hemenover& Dienstbier, 2002)
• Bobo doll experiment(Galanaki & Malafantis, 2022)
• Coercive control(Relationships Victoria)
• Dark triad (Psychology Today)
• Dark triad (Wikipedia)
• Dark Triad Personalities: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy (YouTube)
• Dominance (Wikipedia)
• Heightened sense of frustration(Science Direct)
• Machiavellianism (Wikipedia)
• Manipulative (Wikipedia)
• Power-seeking (Wikipedia)
• Prestige (Wikipedia)
• Psychopathy (Wikipedia)
• Understanding the Dark Triad (Mind Tools)
• Six top tips for writing a great essay (University of Melbourne)
• Social learning theory (Rotter, 2021)
• Trait theory (Doremus, 2020)