Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship of employee psychopathy to job performance and well-being. It was hypothesized that primary psychopathy (interpersonal/affective features, e.g., lack of empathy, manipulativeness) and secondary psychopathy (antisociality and behavioural deviance, e.g., impulsivity, rule-breaking) are negatively related to job performance and well-being. Methods: Employees in Singapore (N=276), enrolled as university part-time students, participated in this study for course credits. They provided self-ratings using the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale and scales on Work Performance, Job and Career Satisfaction (for work-domain specific well-being), Positive/Negative Affect, and Satisfaction with Life. To minimize common method variance, well-being measures were obtained on average 11 days after measuring psychopathy. Results: Hierarchical regression analyses showed for all outcome variables that psychopathy significantly explained additional variance over and above the control variables age and gender. Both primary and secondary psychopathy were significantly negatively related to job satisfaction. Only secondary psychopathy was significantly negatively related to work performance, career satisfaction, positive affect, and life satisfaction; it was significantly positively related to negative affect. Conclusion: Results are of theoretical and practical importance, as they show different effects of the psychopathy traits. Secondary psychopaths perceive themselves as less performing on the job, experience less positive and more negative mood, and are generally discontent with their job, career, and life. As organizational employees, primary psychopaths experience equally low job satisfaction, but there are no negative effects on performance and other well-being outcomes. This can explain why not all psychopaths are unsuccessful psychopaths.

1. Employee Psychopathy: Effects on Job
Performance and Well-being
Yan Yi Lance Du, Singapore U. of Social Sciences
Klaus J Templer, Klaus J Templer & Associates
Martin Schweiger, Schweiger & Partners

2. “Not all psychopaths are in prison. Some are in the boardroom”
- Hare, 2002

3. Psychopathy
• Psychopathy: Constellation of affective, interpersonal and behavioral
characteristics (Hare, 1996) - Impulsive, remorseless, manipulative, callous,
antisocial tendencies
• Dark Triad of personality (Paulhus & Williams, 2002)
• Growing body of research on corporate psychopathy
Psychopathy
Narcissism
Machiavellianism

4. Psychopathy and Job Performance
• Meta-analytic research shows only a weak negative relationship
between psychopathy and job performance (r = -.08). (O'Boyle et al., 2012)
• Information may be lost when psychopathic dimensions are
aggregated (LeBreton et al., 2018)

5. Psychopathy and Subjective Well-being
• Psychopathy is negatively associated with subjective well-being (Love &
Holder, 2014)
• Few studies investigated how different psychopathic dimensions are
related to well-being (LeBreton et al., 2018)

6. • Useful in assessing psychopathy in the general population
• Primary psychopathy: interpersonal and affective features
• Secondary psychopathy: antisocial, deviant behavioral traits
Two-factor model of psychopathy
(Harpur et al., 1989; Levenson et al., 1995)

7. • Successful psychopathy: A variant of psychopathy which is adaptive
(or not maladaptive) (Lilienfeld et al., 2015)
• An oxymoron?
• Successful psychopathy may be characterised by a different
configuration of psychopathy traits
Successful Psychopathy

8. Self determination theory - Fulfilment of basic psychological needs of
competence, autonomy and relatedness promotes well being (Ryan & Deci,
2000)
• Primary and secondary psychopathy should not promote fulfilment of
basic needs
H1: Primary and secondary psychopathy would be negatively related to
well-being
Hypotheses:

9. Five-factor model of personality: Conscientiousness and emotional stability are
predictors of job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000)
• Primary psychopathy is characterised by low agreeableness and low
conscientiousness (Lynam et al., 1999; Miller et al., 2008)
• Secondary psychopathy is characterised by low conscientiousness and low
emotional stability (Lynam et al., 1999)
H2: Primary and secondary psychopathy would be negatively related to job
performance
Hypotheses:

10. • What is the link between (primary and secondary) psychopathy and
job performance/well-being?
Why is this study important?
• More nuanced understanding of psychopathy and its organizational
outcomes
• Contribute to understanding of successful psychopathy
Research Question:

11. • 276 working adults who were part-time university students enrolled
in psychology modules
• 67.8% female, 32.2% males
• Age 21 to 58
• 2 surveys administered 2 weeks apart
• 64.9% in non-managerial position, 25% in junior management, 8% in
middle management, 2.2% in senior management.
• From various industries (education, human resource, military, public service, etc)
Methods - Sample and Design

12. Methods - Measures
Variable Source Sample items No. of
Items
Internal
Reliability
Primary Psychopathy (Time 1) Levenson et
al., 1995
In today's world, I feel justified in doing anything I can
get away with to succeed.
16 items α = .79
Secondary Psychopathy (Time 1) Levenson et
al., 1995
I don't plan anything very far in advance. 10 items α = .63
Job Performance (Time 2) Wayne &
Liden, 1995
Overall to what extent do you feel you have been
effectively fulfilling your roles and responsibilities at
work?
3 items α = .87
Job Satisfaction (Time 2) Brayfield &
Rothe, 1951
I feel fairly satisfied with my present job. 5 items α = .90
Career Satisfaction (Time 2) Spurk, et al.,
2011
I am satisfied with the success I have achieved in my
career.
6 items α = .89
Satisfaction with Life Scale
(Time 2)
Pavot &
Diener, 1993
In most ways my life is close to my ideal. 5 items α = .90
PANAS Scale (Time 2) Watson et
al., 1988
Indicate below each feeling/emotion the extent you have
felt this way:
Excited
Distressed
10 items
each
α = .92 (PA)
α = .90 (NA)

13. Results

14. Results
• Analysis: SPSS Hierarchical Linear Regression (Controlling for age and gender)
• Partial support for H1 and H2
• Primary psychopathy associates negatively with only job satisfaction
(β = -.19, SE=.12, p < .01, 95% CI [-.59, -.10])
• Secondary psychopathy negatively relates to job performance and well being:
• job performance (β = -.20, SE =.11, p < .01, 95% CI [-.55, -.12])
• job satisfaction (β = -.26, SE =.12, p < .01, 95% CI [-.70, -.23])
• career satisfaction (β = -.18, SE =.10, p < .01, 95% CI [-.48, -.09])
• positive affect (β = -.23, SE =.10, p < .01, 95% CI [-.58, -.17])
• life satisfaction (β = -.27, SE =.16, p < .01, 95% CI [-1.00, -.36])
• and positively so with negative affect (β = .19, SE =.10, p < .01, 95% CI [.10, .50])

15. Discussion and Future Directions
• Primary psychopaths experience low job satisfaction:
but no negative effects on performance and other well-being outcomes.
• Secondary psychopaths perceive themselves as:
- worse performing on the job
- experiencing less positive and more negative mood
- discontent with their job, career, and life.
• Differential-configuration model of successful psychopathy (Lilienfeld et al., 2015)
- explains why not all psychopaths are unsuccessful psychopaths
• Replicate study in other cultures
- Test generalisability of findings beyond Singapore

16. Questions and Feedback
Thank you!
Please feel free to share your questions, feedback, and comments with
us by contacting the first author.
Yan Yi Lance Du lance.du@hotmail.sg

17. References
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(5), 307-311.
Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23(1), 25-54.
Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy: Construct validity and
assessment implications. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 6-17.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(6), 869-879.
LeBreton, J. M., Shiverdecker, L. K., & Grimaldi, E. M. (2018). The dark triad and workplace behavior. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 387-414.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., & Smith, S. F. (2015). Successful psychopathy. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 24(4), 298-303.
Love, A. B., & Holder, M. D. (2016). Can romantic relationship quality mediate the relation between psychopathy and
subjective well-being? Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(6), 2407-2429.
Lynam, D. R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported psychopathy: A validation study. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 73(1), 110-132..

18. Miller, J. D., Gaughan, E. T., & Pryor, L. R. (2008). The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale: An examination of the
personality traits and disorders associated with the LSRP factors. Assessment, 15(4), 450-463.
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.
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.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164–172.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development,
and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Spurk, D., Abele, A. E., & Volmer, J. (2011). The career satisfaction scale: Longitudinal measurement invariance and latent
growth analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(2), 315-326.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative
affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal
study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 232-260.