Content uploaded by Cynthia Mathieu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cynthia Mathieu on Apr 04, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A dark side of leadership: Corporate psychopathy and its influence
on employee well-being and job satisfaction
Cynthia Mathieu
a,
⇑
, Craig S. Neumann
c
, Robert D. Hare
b
, Paul Babiak
d
a
Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres, Canada
b
University of British Columbia, Canada
c
University of North Texas, United States
d
Anubis-Research, United States
article info
Article history:
Received 13 June 2013
Received in revised form 7 November 2013
Accepted 14 November 2013
Available online 7 December 2013
Keywords:
Corporate psychopathy
B-Scan 360
Leadership
Psychological distress
Work–family conflict
Job satisfaction
abstract
Although psychopathy often is considered the most toxic of the ‘‘types’’ that make up the Dark Triad of
personality (psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism), its role in organizational leadership is the least
explored. Using the B-Scan 360, a measure of corporate psychopathy, we investigated the relationships
among employees’ perceptions of psychopathic traits in their supervisors, employee psychological dis-
tress, work–family conflict, and job satisfaction. Participants in two different samples, one civic and
the other financial, rated their supervisors with the B-Scan 360, and completed self-report measures of
psychological distress, work–family conflict, and job satisfaction. Structural equation modeling (SEM)
indicated that in each sample B-Scan 360 scores of supervisors were directly and negatively related to
employee job satisfaction. The two samples differed somewhat in the associations of the B-Scan 360 with
employee psychological distress and work–family conflict. Overall, the results illustrate the effects of per-
ceived psychopathic traits in supervisors on employee well-being and job-related attitudes.
Ó2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The ‘‘dark side’’ of leadership has been the topic of considerable
research over the past decade or so. Researchers have described
these ‘‘dark leaders’’ as toxic (Lipman-Blumen, 2008), abusive
(Tepper, 2000), tyrannical (Ashforth, 1994), and destructive (Einar-
sen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007). Some of the common behaviors
exhibited by these leaders are ridiculing and degrading employees,
lying and deceptiveness, blaming others for their mistakes, harass-
ment, and physical aggression. Furthermore, abusive leadership is
associated with a decrease in employee work performance (Harris,
Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007), increased employee workplace devi-
ance (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007), increased levels of psychological
distress (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000; Tepper, 2000), lower levels of job
satisfaction and organizational commitment (Duffy, Ganster, &
Pagon, 2002; Tepper, 2000), and increased levels of work–family
conflict (Tepper, 2000).
Although psychopathy has been identified as the most destruc-
tive of the dark personalities (Williams, Nathanson, & Paulhus,
2010), empirical research on the role played by psychopathic indi-
viduals in the corporate world has lagged behind that devoted to
the impact of other dark personalities. The main problems in
studying corporate psychopathy have been the absence of suitable
measurement tools and the reluctance of some organizations to
participate in research that evaluates their employees (Babiak &
Hare, 2006).
1.1. Corporate psychopathy
Hogan and Hogan (2001) believe the reason for leadership fail-
ure or ‘‘derailment’’ lies in the personality disorder of the leader.
Hogan and Kaiser (2005) extended their model to suggest that
personality directly determines leadership style, which in turn
affects employee attitudes and team functioning and ultimately
organizational performance.
Psychopathy is a clinical construct defined by a cluster of per-
sonality traits and characteristics, including grandiosity, egocen-
tricity, deceptiveness, shallow emotions, lack of empathy or
remorse, irresponsibility, impulsivity, and a tendency to ignore or
violate social norms (Hare & Neumann, 2008). We believe that
psychopathic traits are a potent underlying factor for many of
the deviant interpersonal behaviors displayed by dysfunctional
leaders, and a cause of significant psychological distress in their
employees (Babiak & Hare, 2006).
However, the prevalence and consequences of psychopathy
among leaders and managers in various corporate and financial
contexts only recently have been explored empirically. Babiak,
Neumann, and Hare (2010) reported that the prevalence of
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.010
⇑
Corresponding author. Address: Business Department, Universite du Quebec a
Trois-Rivieres, P.O. Box 500, Trois-Rivieres, Quebec G9A 5H7, Canada.
E-mail address: cynthia.mathieu@uqtr.ca (C. Mathieu).
Personality and Individual Differences 59 (2014) 83–88
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
psychopathy in a sample of high-level managers was about 4%,
which is considerably higher than the prevalence (about 1%) found
in general population samples (Coid, Yang, Ullrich, Roberts, & Hare,
2009; Neumann & Hare, 2008). Babiak and colleagues (2010)
concluded that in spite of their poor performance, psychopathic
professionals were able to get promotions, function in high-level
positions, and exert influence in business decision-making.
1.2. Measuring corporate psychopathy
The standard measures of adult psychopathy are the Psychopa-
thy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) and its derivative, the Psychopathy
Checklist: Screening Version (see Hare & Neumann, 2009). For clini-
cal and applied purposes their administration is restricted to those
with the appropriate professional qualifications, making them
unsuitable for use by many human resources personnel. For this
reason, Babiak and Hare (in preparation) developed the Business-
Scan 360 (B-Scan 360). The B-Scan 360 was modeled on a struc-
tural model of the PCL-R (Hare, 2003; Neumann, Hare, & Newman,
2007), which defines psychopathy as a multifaceted construct
made up of four dimensions: Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle,
and Antisocial. These first-order factors are significantly interre-
lated, suggesting that they are indicators for a second-order super-
ordinate psychopathy factor (Neumann et al., 2007).
Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of a pool of
potential B-Scan 360 items, Mathieu, Hare, Jones, Babiak, and
Neumann (2013) derived a reliable 20-item, four-factor model that
is consistent with the PCL-R structural model. They labeled the four
factors as follows: Manipulative/Unethical;Callous/Insensitive;
Unreliable/Unfocused; and Intimidating/Aggressive. A confirmatory
factor analysis conducted on the B-Scan 360 item scores of the
participants in the current studies (Samples 1 and 2 pooled;
N= 591) replicated this four-factor structure (Mathieu, Neumann,
Babiak, and Hare (under review).
1.3. Corporate psychopathy and leadership behavior
Babiak and Hare (2006) described common leadership failures,
or ‘‘red flags,’’ that may be manifestations of corporate psychopa-
thy. These include difficulty in forming a team and in sharing ideas
and credit with others; disparate treatment of staff; deceptiveness;
immodesty; inability to accept blame; acting unpredictably and
impulsively; and acting aggressively. Similarly, Leslie and Van Vel-
sor (1996) described four aspects of leader behaviors that lead to
career ‘‘derailment’’: poor interpersonal skills (i.e., being arrogant,
cold, insensitive and overly ambitious); inability to get work done
(i.e., betraying trust, not following through); inability to build a
team; and inability to make an effective transition following a pro-
motion. These features are similar to those suggested by Babiak
and Hare (2006) as indicative of corporate psychopathy.
Regardless of their exact nature and style, such psychopathic-
like bosses have a significant impact on employees’ mood, psycho-
logical well-being, and job performance (Spector, 1997). They also
contribute to work–family conflict, which in turn is strongly re-
lated to higher psychological distress (De Lange, Taris, Kompier,
Houtman, & Bongers, 2003; Simon, Kümmerling, & Hasselhorn,
2004) and lower job satisfaction (Bruck, Allen, & Spector, 2002;
Grandey, Cordeiro, & Crouter, 2005). Abusive supervision (i.e., hos-
tile verbal and non-verbal behaviors, indifference and rudeness)
has been shown to be related to lowered levels of job satisfaction,
less normative and affective commitment, and increased psycho-
logical distress (Tepper, 2000). Other studies indicate that various
forms of employee psychological distress are associated with
leaders who are unpredictable in showing integrity (Nyberg,
Westerlund, Hanson, & Theorell, 2008), who adopt an autocratic
leadership style (i.e., high initiating structure and low
consideration; Seltzer & Numerof, 1988), are controlling, have an
unsupportive management style, do not provide supportive feed-
back, or fail to clarify responsibilities (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000).
The similarities between corporate psychopathy and abusive
leadership suggests that B-Scan 360 ratings of supervisors by their
employees would be positively associated with employee reports
of psychological distress and work–family conflict, and negatively
associated with employee reports of job satisfaction. We examined
these associations in the present study by using structural
equation modeling (SEM).
2. Material and methods
2.1. Participants and procedure
This project was part of a larger study on well-being in the
workplace for which the first author has received ethics approval.
The survey, including all of the measures for the larger project, was
accessible online during work hours and took about 45 min to
complete. In each of two samples, participants rated their immedi-
ate supervisor on the B-Scan 360, and completed questionnaires
describing their psychological well-being, job satisfaction and
work–family conflicts.
2.1.1. Sample 1
All of the employees (including managers) from a branch of a
large Canadian financial institution (N= 136) were asked to partic-
ipate in this project by completing a series of assessments. In total,
116 completed the surveys, a participation rate of 85%. Of these, 17
(13.9%) were men, 99 (86.1%) were women, and 16 (2 men, 14 wo-
men) were managers. Age varied from 19 to 60 (mean = 41.4). With
respect to level of education, 37.7% had completed high-school,
43.3% had completed a two-year Associates degree, 22.0% had
completed a Bachelor’s degree and 1.0% had completed a Master’s
degree. On average, employees and supervisors had been in their
current jobs for 4.9 years and had been employed by their
company for 14.2 years (minimum = 6 months and maxi-
mum = 43 years). The employees had been supervised by their cur-
rent superior for an average of two years (minimum = 6 months
and maximum = 15 years).
2.1.2. Sample 2
All of the employees (including managers) from a public service
organization (N= 515) were asked to participate in this project by
completing a series of assessments. In total, 476 employees com-
pleted the surveys, a participation rate of 92%. Of these, 301
(63.3%) were men, 175 (36.8%) were women, and 99 (23 women,
76 men) were managers. Age varied from 19 to 66 (mean = 45.3).
As for the level of education, 5.3% had not completed high-school,
36.8% had completed a high-school diploma, 40.73% had com-
pleted a two-year Associate’s degree, 14.18% had completed a
Bachelor’s degree, and 2.5% had completed a Master’s degree. On
average, employees and supervisors had been in their current jobs
for 8.5 years and had been employed by their company for
14.2 years (minimum = 2 months and maximum = 39 years). On
average, the employees had been supervised by their superior for
3.51 years (minimum = 2 months and maximum = 31 years).
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Personal demographics and work situation characteristics
Education level, time with the company, and hours worked per
week were measured by single items.
84 C. Mathieu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 59 (2014) 83–88
2.2.2. B-Scan 360: corporate psychopathy
Participants rated their immediate supervisor on each of the 20
B-Scan 360 items, using a 5 point Likert-like scale (1 = disagree
strongly; 5 = agree strongly). On average, 7.3 employees rated 16
different supervisors in Sample 1, and 4.6 employees rated 104
different supervisors in Sample 2.
We used intraclass correlation (ICC) to assess the interrater
reliability of the B-Scan 360 ratings. As reported in more detail
elsewhere (Mathieu et al., under review), we estimated ICC(3),
which, with more than one rater is equivalent to Cronbach’s alpha
for each rated supervisor (Ostroff, Atwater, & Feinberg, 2004;
Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). We combined the two samples and calcu-
lated a separate alpha for each supervisor with a minimum of
two employee B-Scan 360 ratings (total of 116 supervisors). The
average ICC(3) value for employee ratings of supervisors was .81
for the B-Scan 360 total score. The average ICC(3) for the B-Scan
360 factors was .62 for Manipulative/Unethical, .74 for Callous/
Insensitive, .58 for Unreliable/Unfocused, and .65 for Intimidat-
ing/Aggressive. These values are in line with those obtained in
other studies in which employees rated their supervisors (Ostroff
et al., 2004), and indicate that subordinates were capable of pro-
viding reasonably reliable evaluations of supervisory traits and
behaviors related to psychopathy.
2.2.3. GHQ-12: employees’ psychological well-being
The General Health Questionnaire-12(GHQ-12; Goldberg &
Williams, 1991) is a 12-item measure of psychological well-being
frequently used to screen for symptoms of non-psychotic psychiatric
disorders. The GHQ-12 has been found to have good reliability and
validity for individuals in the workforce (Makowska, Merecz,
Moscicka, & Kolasa, 2002). Items are rated on a 4 point Likert-
type scale.
2.2.4. Work–family conflict (WFC)
The items used for this study were adapted from the work–fam-
ily conflict, family–work conflict, and affective experiences ques-
tionnaire (Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). While the full
instrument measures family–work conflict (influence of family sit-
uations on work) as well as work–family conflict (influence of work
situations on family life), we used only the five items pertaining
to work–family conflict as we wished to study the influence of work
on family life. In the original version (Netemeyer et al., 1996), the
alpha coefficient for these five items was .88.
2.2.5. Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ): job satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured using a short version of the Min-
nesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England, &
Lofquist, 1967). This well-validated instrument includes 20 items
rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = very low level of satisfac-
tion; 6 = very high level of satisfaction).
3. Results
3.1. Correlations among study variables
Table 1 presents the manifest-level correlations among the B-
Scan 360, the GHQ-12, WFC and the MSQ measures variables. In
addition, Table 1 shows that all four factors were highly positively
related to one another and with the total B-Scan 360 score, consis-
tent with the Hare four-factor model of psychopathy. Table 2 pre-
sents the correlations of these variables with demographic and
work-situation characteristics (education level, time with com-
pany and work hours).
In Sample 1, higher employee ratings of their supervisor on the
B-Scan 360 total score were associated with higher ratings of
psychological distress (GHQ-12) and lower ratings of job satisfac-
tion (MSQ). Of the B-Scan 360 variables, only the Manipulative/
Unethical factor was significantly related to work–family conflict
(WFC). However, all B-Scan 360 factors were significantly associ-
ated with job satisfaction (MSQ) scores. Scores on all B-Scan 360
factors, except for Factor 3 (Unreliable/Unfocused) were signifi-
cantly associated with higher scores on the psychological distress
measure (GHQ-12).
In Sample 2, higher employee ratings of their supervisor on the
B-Scan 360 total score were associated with higher ratings of their
own psychological distress (GHQ-12), work–family conflict (WFC),
and lower job satisfaction (MSQ). Furthermore, three of the four B-
Scan 360 factors were positively related to higher GHQ-12, WFC,
and lower MSQ scores. Factor 4 (Intimidating/Aggressive) was
not significantly correlated with WFC.
3.2. SEM results
We conducted an SEM to examine the predictive relations
among the B-Scan 360, WFC, GHQ-12, and MSQ variables, as well
as to determine how much variance the B-Scan 360 accounted
for in WFC, GHQ-12 and MSQ. Specifically, we used the four B-Scan
360 sub-scale scores as indicators for a single B-Scan 360 latent
variable. We then used this latent variable to predict the total scale
score of the WFC, GHQ-12 and MSQ manifest variables. Also in-
cluded in this SEM were those variables that showed a significant
correlation with the B-Scan 360: education, time with company,
WFC, GHQ-12, and MSQ. Education was coded as follows:
1 = high-school not completed, 2 = high-school diploma, 3 = two-
year Associate’s degree, 4 = Bachelor’s degree, 5 = Master’s degree.
All model analyses were conducted with Mplus (Muthén & Muthé-
n, 1998–2010) maximum likelihood estimation for the SEMs, given
the continuously distributed data (i.e., scale scores). As recom-
mended by Hu and Bentler (1999), we used a two-index strategy
to assess model fit: The incremental Comparative Fit Index (CFI),
and an absolute fit index, the Root Mean Square Error of Approxi-
mation (RMSEA). Traditionally, CFI at or above .90 and RMSEA at or
below .08 suggest acceptable model fit (Hoyle, 1995).
The same structural equation model (SEM) was specified and
tested for each sample separately, to take into account the possibil-
ity that supervisors with psychopathic traits may have differential
effects in different work settings. Model fit for the SEM was excel-
lent for both Sample 1 (X
2
(28) = 34.8, p= .17, CFI = .97,
RMSEA = .04), and for Sample 2 (X
2
(28) = 50.3, p= .01, CFI = .96,
RMSEA = .04).
For Sample 1, the B-Scan 360 predicted work–family conflict
and job satisfaction directly. However, it predicted psychological
distress only through work–family conflict. Moreover, work–fam-
ily conflict significantly predicted job satisfaction but psychologi-
cal distress did not. Finally, hours worked per week was a
significant predictor of both work–family conflict and job satisfac-
tion in this professional sample.
For Sample 2, the SEM results indicated that the B-Scan 360 was
a significant predictor of job satisfaction as well as work–family
conflict, consistent with the findings for Sample 1. Similarly,
work–family conflict significantly predicted psychological distress.
However, the SEM results for Sample 2 revealed that the B-Scan
360 also significantly predicted psychological distress in this public
sector sample. Furthermore, psychological distress was a signifi-
cant predictor of job satisfaction, which contrasts with the findings
for Sample 1. Notably, for both models the strongest predictor of
job satisfaction was the B-Scan 360.
Overall, the SEMs were able to account for 38–42% of the vari-
ance in job satisfaction scores, as well as 19–24% of the variance
in psychological distress (GHQ-12) scores, and 2–8% of the
variance in work–family conflict (WFC) scores. Figures 1 and 2
depict the SEM results with standardized model parameters.
C. Mathieu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 59 (2014) 83–88 85
4. Discussion
The current research had two objectives. The first objective was
to test the manifest-level relations between employee ratings of
their supervisors on a measure of corporate psychopathy and mea-
sures of their own psychological distress, work–family conflict, and
job satisfaction. In each sample there was a significant positive
relationship between employees’ ratings of psychopathy traits in
their supervisors and employee’s self-reported psychological
distress and job satisfaction. However, the pattern of associations
between the employee ratings of their supervisors on corporate
psychopathy traits and work–family conflict differed somewhat
in the two samples, which could be due to differences in sample
characteristics. For example, Sample 2 was much larger than
Sample 1, and the difference in results might reflect a difference
in statistical power. It also is possible that employee perception
of psychopathy traits in their supervisors and work–family conflict
relate differently in private sector financial services companies
Table 1
Model variables: Means, standard deviations, reliability and intercorrelations for Sample 1 (n= 116) and Sample 2 (n= 476).
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean (SD)
Sample 1 (Financial)
1. B-Scan factor 1 (.78) 2.60 (.76)
2. B-Scan factor 2 .63
**
(.81) 1.93 (.72)
3. B-Scan factor 3 .45
**
.48
**
(.75) 2.08 (.54)
4. B-Scan factor 4 .70
**
.75
**
.49
**
(.78) 2.07 (.68)
5. B-Scan total .86
**
.87
**
.69
**
.89
**
(.87) 2.17 (.57)
6. GHQ-12 .20
*
.26
**
.12 .28
**
.26
**
(.87) 22.81 (5.2)
7. WFC .19
*
.11 .08 .15 .17 .48
**
(.89) 8.61 (4.82)
8. MSQ .40
**
.43
**
.46
**
.34
**
.49
**
.32
**
.24
**
(.91) 74.00 (10.5)
Sample 2 (Civic)
1. B-Scan factor 1 (.75) 2.47 (.80)
2. B-Scan factor 2 .54
**
(.84) 2.09 (.80)
2. B-Scan factor 3 .51
**
.65
**
(.64) 2.07 (.65)
2. B-Scan factor 4 .52
**
.56
**
.46
**
(.71) 2.20 (.82)
5. b-scan total .80
**
.85
**
.81
**
.78
**
(.83) 2.21 (.61)
6. GHQ-12 .17
**
.24
**
.19
**
.18
**
.24
**
(.83) 22.02 (5.3)
7. WFC .12
**
.12
**
.09
**
.05 .12
**
.30
**
(.87) 10.00 (5.2)
8. MSQ .37
**
.49
**
.37
**
.37
**
.50
**
.36
**
.19
**
(.90) 72.97 (11.0)
Note: GHQ-12 = General Health Questionnaire-12; WFC = work–family conflict; MSQ = Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire; B-Scan = B-Scan 360. Alpha reliability is on the
diagonal.
*
p< .05.
**
p< .01.
Table 2
Correlations among demographic, work-related variables, and GHQ-12, WFC, MSQ, and the B-Scan-360 for Sample 1 (n= 116) and Sample 2 (n= 476).
Variable Sample 1 (Financial) Sample 2 (Civic)
GHQ-12 WFC MSQ B-Scan GHQ-12 WFC MSQ B-Scan
Education .01 .17 .10 .09 .13
**
.05 .01 .13
**
Work hours .07 .20
*
.29
**
.04 .04 .05 .01 .13
**
Time with company .02 .02 .16 .21
*
.11
*
.06 .06 .03
Note: GHQ-12 = General Health Questionnaire-12; WFC = work–family conflict; MSQ = Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire; B-Scan = B-Scan 360.
*
p< .05.
**
p< .01.
Fig. 1. Structural equation model testing the influence of the B-Scan 360 on psychological distress, work–family conflict, and job satisfaction for Sample 1 (Financial; n= 116).
86 C. Mathieu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 59 (2014) 83–88
(Sample 1) versus public organizations (Sample 2). However, there
was a fair amount of concordance between the two samples for the
manifest-variable correlations.
Our second objective was to propose and test a structural equa-
tion model that describes the associations between employees’
reports of their direct supervisor on a corporate psychopathy
measure and a variety of variables, including work–family conflict,
psychological distress, job satisfaction, education, time with com-
pany, and hours worked per week. Overall, the results indicated
that supervisor B-Scan 360 scores most strongly predicted employ-
ee job satisfaction. Furthermore, for both samples, the SEM results
revealed that the (latent) B-Scan 360 variable had a significant neg-
ative association with work–family conflict. The latter results are
in-line with previous findings that non-supportive supervision in-
creases work–family conflict (Frye & Breaugh, 2004; Thomas &
Ganster, 1995). On the other hand, the B-Scan 360 was not able
to predict psychological distress in the professional sample.
Although these specific findings will require replication, they
suggest that perceived psychopathic features in supervisors had
less of a direct impact on employee psychological distress in a pri-
vate sector sample than in a public sector sample. Furthermore, the
financial sample consisted primarily of women while the public
sample consisted primarily of men. Research has indicated that
work–family conflict affects women more than men, and perhaps
there are also sex-related differences in the ways in which psycho-
pathic supervisors affect psychological distress in their employees.
That is, the effect may be relatively direct with male employees
and more indirect (e.g., through work–family conflict) in female
employees. This possibility warrants further investigation.
Taken together, the SEM results are consistent with the general
management literature on the contributions of negative supervi-
sory behaviors to psychological distress, work–family conflict,
and job dissatisfaction (Ashforth, 1994; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000;
Tepper, 2000). As noted above, Hogan and Kaiser (2005) have ar-
gued that personality is a major determinant of leadership style.
Here, we suggest that psychopathy may play a particularly
important role in explaining the dynamics of dysfunctional and
destructive leadership styles.
4.1. Limitations
The structural equation models described were based on two
organizations willing to participate in our research on corporate
psychopathy. Although the results were much the same in each
organization we do not know the extent to which they will
generalize to other similar and diverse organizations. Because
employees provided the information used to score all study
variables, our results may reflect the effects of common-source var-
iance. Some commentators have suggested that the effects of com-
mon-source variance may be overstated (Brannick, Chan, Conway,
Lance, & Spector, 2010). However, it is important to minimize these
effects as much as possible (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff,
2012).
In this study, the participants remained anonymous, giving
them the freedom to express their ‘‘true’’ perceptions, attitudes
and intentions. We used robust measurement scales, with the
B-Scan 360 and the dependent variables being placed in different
sections of the questionnaire. The participants themselves were
not aware that this was a study of ‘‘psychopathy’’ as it was not
mentioned in any of their participants’ materials (as agreed upon
with their management who approved the project). Also, the
B-Scan 360 was conceptually distinct from the other study vari-
ables, helping to reduce the risk attributable to common-source
variance (Brannick et al., 2010).
4.2. Conclusions and future research
It clearly is important to understand the role played by psy-
chopathy in the workplace. The B-Scan 360 allows human re-
sources personnel to assess psychopathic traits and behaviors in
employees. In this study we found that employee ratings of their
supervisors on this instrument were associated in predicted ways
with self-reported job satisfaction and psychological well-being
in two corporate samples. Future research would benefit greatly
from the addition of (1) independent assessments of employee per-
formance, attitudes, experiences, and well-being; (2) a full range of
B-Scan 360 assessments in which employees at various levels rate
their corporate subordinates, peers, and superiors; and (3) a broad
range of corporate settings.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by grants from the Donner Foun-
dation to Cynthia Mathieu, Robert Hare, and Craig S. Neumann.
Robert Hare receives royalties from the sale and use of the PCL-R
and its published derivatives. We thank Kylie Neufeld for her assis-
tance in preparing this manuscript.
References
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755–778.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700701.
Fig. 2. Structural equation model testing the influence of the B-Scan 360 on psychological distress, work–family conflict, and job satisfaction for Sample 2 (Civic; n= 476).
C. Mathieu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 59 (2014) 83–88 87
Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (in preparation). The B-Scan 360 Manual.
Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. New
York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Babiak, P., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2010). Corporate psychopathy: Talking the
walk. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 28, 174–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
bsl.925.
Brannick, M. T., Chan, D., Conway, J. M., Lance, C. E., & Spector, P. E. (2010). What is
method variance and how can we cope with it? A panel discussion.
Organizational Research Methods, 13, 407–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1094428109360993.
Bruck, C. S., Allen, T. D., & Spector, P. E. (2002). The relation between work–family
conflict and job satisfaction: A finer-grained analysis. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 60, 336–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe2001.1836.
Coid, J., Yang, M., Ullrich, S., Roberts, A., & Hare, R. D. (2009). Prevalence and
correlates of psychopathic traits in the household population of Great Britain.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32, 65–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijlp.2009.01.002.
De Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Houtman, I. L. D., & Bongers, P. M.
(2003). ‘‘The very best of the millennium’’: Longitudinal research and the
demand-control-(support) model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8,
282–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.282.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the
workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/3069350.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behavior: A
definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207–216. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002.
Frye, N. K., & Breaugh, J. A. (2004). Family-friendly policies, supervisor support,
work-family conflict, family–work conflict, and satisfaction: A test of a
conceptual model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 197–220. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-004-0548-4.
Goldberg, D., & Williams, P. (1991). A user’s guide to the General Health Questionnaire.
Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.
Grandey, A., Cordeiro, B., & Crouter, A. (2005). A longitudinal and multi-source test
of the work–family conflict and job satisfaction relationship. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 305–323. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1348/096317905X26769.
Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the revised psychopathy checklist (2nd ed.). Toronto,
ON: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical
construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217–246. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452.
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2009). Psychopathy and its measurement. In P. Corr &
G. Matthews (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of personality psychology
(pp. 660–686). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive
supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a
moderator of the relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 252–263. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.007.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40–51. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/1468-2389.00162.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General
Psychology, 9, 169–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169.
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc..
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Leslie, J. B., & Van Velsor, E. (1996). A look at derailment today. Greensboro, NC:
Center for Creative Leadership.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2008). Following toxic leaders: In search of posthumous praise.
In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How
great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 181–194). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Makowska, Z., Merecz, D., Moscicka, A., & Kolasa, W. (2002). The validity of general
health questionnaires, GHQ-12 and GHQ-28, in mental health studies of
working people. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and
Environmental Health, 15, 353–362.
Mathieu, C., Neumann, C. S., Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (under review). Factor structure
and reliability of the B-Scan 360 in organizational settings.
Mathieu, C., Hare, R. D., Jones, D. N., Babiak, P., & Neumann, C. S. (2013). Factor
structure of the B-Scan 360: A Measure of corporate psychopathy. Psychological
Assessment, 25, 288–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029262.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace
deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 1159–1168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.
92.4.1159.
Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (1998–2010). MPlus User’s Guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles:
Muthen & Muthen.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of
work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 400–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400.
Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2008). Psychopathic traits in a large community
sample: Links to violence, alcohol use, and intelligence. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 76, 893–899. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.5.893.
Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Newman, J. P. (2007). The super-ordinate nature of the
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 102–117.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2007.21.2.102.
Nyberg, A., Westerlund, H., Hanson, L. L. M., & Theorell, T. (2008). Managerial
leadership is associated with self-reported sickness absence and sickness
presenteeism among Swedish men and women. Scandinavian Journal of Public
Health, 36, 803–811. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1403494808093329.
Ostroff, C., Atwater, L. E., & Feinberg, B. J. (2004). Understanding self-other
agreement: A look at rater and ratee characteristics, context, and outcomes.
Personnel Psychology, 57, 333–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.
2004.tb02494.x.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias
in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual
Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-
120710-100452.
Seltzer, J., & Numerof, R. E. (1988). Supervisory leadership and subordinate burnout.
Academy of Management Journal, 31, 439–446. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
256559.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater
reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.86.2.420.
Simon, M., Kümmerling, A., & Hasselhorn, H. M. (2004). Work-home conflict in the
European nursing profession. International Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Health, 10, 384–391.
Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Leadership styles, mentoring functions
received, and job-related stress: A conceptual model and preliminary study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 365–390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
(sici)1099-1379(200006)21:4<365::aid-job14>3.0.co;2-H.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and
consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc..
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 178–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556375.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on
work–family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80, 6–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.6.
Weiss, D., Dawis, R., England, G., & Lofquist, L. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire. minnesota studies in vocational rehabilitation 22.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Williams, K. M., Nathanson, C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Identifying and profiling
scholastic cheaters: Their personality, cognitive ability, and motivation. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 293–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0020773.
88 C. Mathieu et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 59 (2014) 83–88
