Introduction

Many reports conclude that psychopaths are ruthless bullies (Boddy & Taplin, 2017) who exhibit a wide range of odious behaviors (Mathieu, et al., 2020). Driven by a strong desire to win, they have been shown to lie, manipulate and exploit others for their own gain with little sign of remorse (Marshall, et al., 2016; Patrick, 2022).

Paradoxically, studies have also shown that psychopaths can be socially skilled, charismatic and professionally successful (Lilienfeld et al., 2015a, 2015b). Such findings have emerged from facet-based studies of psychopathy (Patrick, et al., 2009) which reveal further adaptive features of psychopaths such as fearlessness (Lilienfeld et al., 2012), risk-taking (Patton et al., 2018) and altruism (Mayer, et al., 2018).

One domain that attracts people with psychopathic traits are leadership positions as they provide opportunities for power, status and control (Spain, et al., 2014; Spurk, et al., 2016). Most studies of such individuals in this domain focus on their deleterious effects (Richard, et al., 2020; Smith & Lilienfeld, 2013), while less attention has been paid to exploring their adaptive behaviors. This is unfortunate as prosocial behavior has been identified within the behavioral repertoire of leaders with psychopathic traits (Patton et al., 2018). Moreover, as leaders play a significant role in the success of organizations (Kaiser et al., 2008), this is an important matter to explore.

A key adaptive behavior of any leader is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB, Organ, 1988). This encompasses behaviors such as proactively helping others, demonstrating loyalty and positivity towards the organization and placing the interests of the organization ahead of one’s own. At first glance, psychopaths may be considered unlikely agents of OCB given their dominant characterisation as malevolent and pernicious. However, when psychopathy is measured according to its facets, positive associations between boldness and disinhibition with OCB have been found in studies using student and community samples (Preston, et al., 2022). Thus, the first question to explore is whether such associations prevail among leaders, from whom this behavior is an inherent expectation of their role expression.

A necessary follow-up question concerns explanatory mechanisms of positive associations between facets of psychopathy and OCB. To date, researchers have grappled with explaining any adaptive behavior from psychopaths. While dispositional characteristics including pride (Costello, et al., 2018), conscientiousness (Mullins-Sweatt, et al., 2010), and courage (Roşca, et al., 2021), as well as cognitive mechanisms of response inhibition and problems with emotional processing (Blair, 2018) have been proposed as relevant in this regard, empirical investigations remain limited leaving this domain poorly understood (Landay, et al., 2019).

We propose that the psychopath’s moral framework may hold a key to unlocking this conundrum. While few would immediately associate psychopathic traits with morally attuned behavior, meta-analyses have failed to conclude that the psychopath is bereft of a moral code (Marshall et al., 2016) or lacks a conscience (Porter, 1996). This leaves open the possibility that a psychopath’s adaptive behavior may rest on their moral calculus. As the demonstration of OCB also reflects an agent’s moral code (Cohen, et al., 2014), it stands to reason the demonstration of OCB by psychopaths may be explained with reference to morality. We use the individualizing and binding categories of moral foundations theory (Graham et al., 2013) to explore this matter on and draw on members of a professional association of school leaders as our sample.

The paper is organized as follows: Related Literature and Hypotheses cover the findings from previous studies related to psychopathy, moral foundations and OCB. Data and Methods describe the research design and methodological approaches. Results and Discussion present the findings and discusses possible interpretations and implications. Concluding Remarks sum up and conclude the paper.

Related Literature and Hypotheses

Psychopathy

For as long as the human condition has been studied, individuals have been identified who are driven by the desire for power, domination, and greed, and for whom justice, empathy, and virtue have little value. In casual discourse as well as clinical explorations, these people have been identified as psychopaths and have been the subject of fascination and intrigue across the ages. In his seminal work on the subject, Cleckley (1941) described psychopathy as a paradoxical condition in which an outward mask of normalcy disguises an acute underlying pathology that manifests as repeatedly purposeful destructive behavior and a disregard for consequences. Located within the dark core of personality (Moshagen, et al., 2018), psychopathy has been identified as a disorder characterised in part by shallow emotional responses, lack of empathy, impulsivity, and an increased likelihood of anti-social behavior (Sellbom & Drislane, 2021).

Research on psychopaths originated and has largely been conducted in the clinical and forensic domains (e.g. Lilienfeld, 1994). Over time, studies of psychopathy have moved beyond such settings allowing the identification of sub-clinical psychopathy to emerge (Clarke, 2005; Morse, 2004; Smith & Lilienfeld, 2013). The difference between clinical and sub-clinical psychopathy is said to be one of degree, and centres on the capacity of the individual to manage its expression (Gao et al., 2011). Sub-clinical psychopathy is the focus of this study.

Psychopathy and Leaders

People who hold leadership roles are of critical importance in organizations (Kaiser, et al., 2008). Their purpose is to influence others to collectively direct their efforts towards the achievement of organizational goals and objectives (Palanski et al., 2021). However, leadership roles attract people with sub-clinical psychopathic traits (Chiaburu, et al., 2013; Hogan, et al., 2021), with studies suggesting that their prevalence in leadership positions is higher than among the general population (Babiak, 1995; Boddy, et al., 2021). Such individuals are attracted to these positions as they provide opportunities to achieve rewards and demonstrate dominance (Hare, 2003; Palmen, 2021).

Most evidence concerning the relationship between psychopathic personality characteristics and leadership behavior is negative (Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Mathieu & Babiak, 2016). The laissez-faire leadership style associated with them leaves subordinates feeling poorly guided (Mathieu & Babiak, 2015), disheartened, and likely to leave the organization (Boddy, 2017). Moreover, psychopathic leaders have been shown to ruthlessly pursue their own goals ahead of the firm (Boddy & Taplin, 2017), bully their colleagues (Hurst, et al., 2019; Valentine, et al., 2018; Van Scotter et al., 2020), falsify financial results (Mutschmann, et al., 2021), and commit outright fraud on the company that employs them (Neo et al., 2018; Zona, et al., 2013).

Paradoxically, or reflecting an emergent interpersonal syndrome (Lilienfeld, et al., 2019), studies have also shown that sub-clinical psychopaths avoid becoming hostages to their dispositions. Referred to as adaptive, successful or corporate psychopaths (Benning, et al., 2018; Dutton, 2012), these individuals can be polished and charismatic (Proyer, et al., 2012), conscientious (Miller & Lynam, 2015), and exhibit higher levels of planning and dutiful behavior (Mullins-Sweatt, et al., 2010). Their cool decisiveness (Kholin, et al., 2020), success in building professional networks (Hill & Scott, 2019), self-control (Patrick, et al., 2009) and resilience (Szabó et al., 2022) support their ascent into leadership positions (Boddy et al., 2021; Howe, et al., 2014) and render them competent in the eyes of others (Babiak et al., 2010; Son Hing, et al., 2007).

The Triarchic Model of Psychopathy

One route to explicating these seemingly contradictory expressions has been facilitated by facet-based measures of psychopathy which reveal divergent relations between components of psychopathy and external criteria (Benning et al., 2005). The Triarchic model of psychopathy (Patrick & Drislane, 2015; Patrick et al., 2009) conceptualises psychopathy as comprising three distinct but intersecting constructs, namely boldness, disinhibition, and meanness, each of which may relate differently to behavior (Borg & Sinnott-Armstrong, 2013).

Boldness is associated with a tolerance for and ability to remain calm and focused in dangerous and unfamiliar situations and an assertive and socially dominant interpersonal style. While boldness can manifest as a grandiose sense of self-worth, and superiority over others (Hare et al., 1990), it is positively associated with subordinate satisfaction (Sanecka, 2013) and facilitates success in occupations that call for bravery and emotional resilience (Kjærgaard, et al., 2013; Leon & Venables, 2015).

Disinhibition refers to general phenotypic deficits in planning and foresight, often leading to negative consequences, alienation, and distrust. It incorporates impaired behavioral restraint, leading to impatience and insistence on immediate gratification and lack of long-term goals (Tsang et al., 2014). It further encompasses impulsivity, irresponsibility, and aggressive behavior, at times leading to norm-violating or anti-social acts (Krueger et al., 2007). Disinhibition generally captures the idea that psychopaths have severe self-regulation deficits and are unable to control themselves in a variety of contexts (Pechorro et al., 2021).

Patrick and Drislane (2015), characterise meanness as empowerment through cruelty and destructiveness. It comprises reduced concern about harming others (Blair et al., 2002; Levenston et al., 2000), and higher levels of schadenfreude (Porter et al., 2014). A disdain for and lack of social connectedness (Hare et al., 1990), a willingness to lie (Miller & Lynam, 2003), deficient empathy (Almeida et al., 2015; van Dongen, 2020) and an ability to manipulate and exploit others (Neo et al., 2018) are typical manifestations of meanness.

Reflecting behavioral threshold theory (Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000), these facets of psychopathy have been shown to display sharply different, and, at times, even opposing relations with a range of variables (Verschuere et al., 2018). For example, Dotterer et al. (2017) found that boldness is positively associated with positive affect and prosocial involvement with peers, while meanness was found to be negatively related to positive affect and involvement with peers. Similarly, Weidacker and et al. (2017) identified that meanness was positively related to all five facets of impulsivity, but the associations with both boldness and disinhibition were more diverse.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and Facets of Psychopathy

OCB is defined as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate, promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p.4). Characteristically prosocial, OCB concerns helping others, being loyal to the organization and acting as a good citizen and has been shown to contribute to a positive social, psychological and productive work environment (Podsakoff et al., 2009).

The display of OCB by leaders is a potent means by which the spirit of citizenship can thrive in organizations. Many leaders consider it to be an essential part of their job (Lam et al., 1999) and it is commonly expected of them by employees (Ocampo et al., 2018). Engaging in OCB is a key means by which leaders stimulate others to demonstrate such positive and prosocial behaviors (Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Paré et al., 2000), and when leaders do so, they enjoy positive evaluations by others (Yaffe et al., 2011).

On the surface, expecting prosocial behavior from leaders with psychopathic traits may seem misplaced, in that we readily associate such behavior with people of integrity and goodwill (Simons, et al., 2015) rather than from those seemingly bereft of such qualities. However, corporate psychopaths have a strong desire to look good and are known to fake prosocial behaviour as a route to achieve this end (Boddy, et al., 2022). This capacity is anchored in the orthogonal relationship between constructive and destructive behavior whereby the display of the former is independent of and does not preclude the display of the latter (Neumann et al., 2013). Thus, while individuals with psychopathic traits may exhibit destructive behaviors, there is a possibility that they also engage in prosocial behaviors, albeit driven by duplicitous motivation.

Building upon the differential-configuration model of psychopathy (Lilienfeld, et al., 2015a, 2015b), which holds that successful psychopathy is a milder form of clinical psychopathy that may be advantageous in the organisational environment due to the associations of dark traits with both strengths and weaknesses (Judge et al., 2009), researchers have undertaken studies to explore the complex interplay between psychopathic traits and prosocial behavior in corporate settings. Such explorations extend beyond a binary perspective of destructive behavior and open the door to a more nuanced understanding. This nuanced approach is essential for comprehending the full spectrum of actions and decisions made by psychopathic leaders, allowing for a more thorough analysis of their impact on the corporate environment and organizational dynamics.

For example, White (2014) demonstrated that affective callousness was positively associated with explicit and public demonstration of prosocial behaviors. Contreras-Huerta, et al. (2022) echoed the findings of earlier work by Eisenberg and et al. (2010) by identifying that the affective component of psychopathy was associated with prosocial behavior. The work of Sharpe et al. (2023) corroborated the conclusions of Gatner et al. (2016) concerning the positive association between boldness and prosocial behavior, a finding also detected in a meta-analysis of research in personality disorders (Hepp & Niedtfeld, 2022). Finally, investigations of first responders (Patton et al., 2018), police officers (Falkenbach et al., 2018), as well as surgeons (Pegrum & Pearce, 2015) have revealed that combinations of the adaptive traits of psychopathy are conducive to prosocial behavior in these respective contexts.

In the organizational context, the self-interested orientation of people with psychopathic traits is likely to drive prosocial behavior to the extent that it advances this cause (Sonne et al., 2018). Thus, leaders with psychopathic traits may engage in OCB to drive high performance of their team (Nielsen et al., 2012) which reflects positively on them as leaders and, in turn, advances their self-interests (Zamora, et al., 2022) Secondly, the exhibition of such behavior makes them appear kind, generous, and dedicated, which helps meet their self-image concerns (Boddy, et al., 2022; Gervais, et al., 2013). Moreover, such performative expressions allow them fit in with norms and expectations of leader behavior (Mea et al., 2019), thus preventing them being exposed or rejected as inappropriate (Castille et al., 2018). Finally, the demonstration of OCB affords them the trust of others, seducing them into allyship which the psychopath can exploit in the future (Mencl et al., 2009; Osumi et al., 2017; Overgaauw, et al., 2019).

Against such a backdrop, studies have begun to explore the association between psychopathic traits and OCB, however findings have been inconclusive. One study undertaken with Arab teachers in Israel was unable to detect any association between psychopathy and OCB (Cohen & Abedallah, 2021). A further three studies among community and employee samples from Iraq, the U.S, and Hungary respectively, found negative associations between psychopathy and OCB (Al-Abrrow et al., 2020; Szabó, et al., 2018; Webster & Smith, 2019). Unfortunately, as each of these studies conceptualised and measured psychopathy as a monolithic variable within a higher-order construct (Jones & Paulhus, 2014) the minutae of this relationship may have been clouded (Skeem, et al., 2011).

Preston and et al. (2022) explored this relationship using facet-based measures of psychopathy in a large U.S. sample of employees. In line with their predictions, they found that meanness negatively predicted OCB, and boldness positively predicted OCB. Unexpectedly, they also found that disinhibition positively predicted OCB. As this result emerged from an online community sample, the authors called for field replications with construct-appropriate samples to validate their findings.

This study responds to their call and proposes the following rationale concerning the relations between the sub-dimensions of psychopathy and OCB among professional leaders. Meanness has been commonly described as the darkest of the dark traits (Szabó et al., 2018). As it is characterised by traits ostensibly at variance with OCB, namely egocentricity (Cleckley, 1941), a lack of concern for others and deficient empathy (Ali, et al., 2009), we hypothesize that meanness negatively predicts leader OCB. Disinhibition is characterised by insistence on immediate gratification (Patrick & Drislane, 2015), lack of long-term goals (Tsang et al., 2014), and anti-social acts (Krueger et al., 2007). As these associations are largely incompatible with OCB, we hypothesize that disinhibition also negatively predicts leader OCB. Given the identified positive manifestations of boldness in the workplace (Crego & Widiger, 2016; Neo, et al., 2018), and the potential of boldness to drive altruism (Patton, et al., 2018), we hypothesize that boldness positively predicts leader OCB.

Hypothesis 1:

Meanness is negatively associated with leader OCB.

Hypothesis 2:

Disinhibition is negatively associated with leader OCB.

Hypothesis 3:

Boldness is positively associated with leader OCB.

Psychopathy and Morality

Recognizing the complexity of defining morality (Gert and Gert 2020), Haidt (2011) describes morality as comprising “interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate self-interest and make cooperative societies possible” (p.270). Morality has been closely associated with psychopathy ever since Pritchard (1835) described psychopathy as ‘moral insanity’. Since then, the relationship between psychopathy and morality has been found to be multi-faceted and varied with studies indicating that individuals with psychopathic traits do not demonstrate uniform patterns of moral reasoning (Koenigs, et al., 2012). On the one hand, studies have concluded that the relationship between morality and psychopathy is negative (Walker & Jackson, 2017). Indeed, moral impoverishment is said to underscore psychopathic behavior (Luke et al., 2021), with psychopaths being described as unappreciative of moral values and incapable of making moral judgments (Adshead, 2014; Maibom, 2022). Unfortunately, empirical evidence to support these claims is lacking (Larsen, et al., 2020).

On the other hand, it has been contended that psychopaths do not lack moral capacity (Cima, et al., 2010; Schaich, et al., 2013), but rather that they demonstrate merely atypical (Ye, et al., 2021) or indeed minimal deficits in moral judgements (Cardinale & Marsh, 2015). They are said to invoke the morality of utilitarianism (Balash & Falkenbach, 2018; Bartels & Pizarro, 2011) and demonstrate advanced moral reasoning (Link, et al., 1977). Indeed, Tortoriello et al. (2020) conclude that psychopathic traits are even conducive to constructive behavior in morally distressing circumstances. Such diversity of perspectives is reflected in meta-analyses being unable to conclude that psychopaths differ from non-psychopaths in moral terms (Borg & Sinnott-Armstrong, 2013). With Marshall et al. (2016) contending that the former just have ‘a different set of moral taste buds’ to the latter (p.1), the role of morality in the behavior of psychopaths deserves further attention.

Morality, Psychopathic Traits and OCB

Reflecting the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen et al., 2018), studies have shown that moral principles regulate the behavior and interactions of individuals (Haidt, 2011), with field (e.g. Nilsson, et al., 2016) and experimental (e.g. Kistler, et al., 2017) investigations identifying associations between the endorsement of abstract moral principles and behavior. However, Ellemers et al. (2019) echo Blasi’s still-current conclusion (Blasi, 1980), that many questions in this domain remain unanswered and they encourage continued exploration of how morality relates to concrete behaviors in specific situations.

Steinert and et al. (2017) posits that the relationship between psychopathy and its consequences is influenced by a number of intervening variables. While contextual variables (Gunschera, et al., 2022) as well as intrapersonal factors such as age and intelligence have been noted as important in constraining negative expressions of psychopathy (Benning et al., 2018), empirical investigations of intrapersonal explanatory mechanisms of a psychopath’s adaptive behavior remain under-explored (Landay, et al., 2019).

Recognising that how individuals perceive, process, and respond to moral and social situations rests on a complex interplay between personality traits (Ng et al., 2024), social cognition (Frith, 2008; Rusconi, et al., 2020), and moral reasoning (Brambilla et al., 2014), we propose that there is a strong theoretical rationale to position morality as a mediator in the association between psychopathic traits and OCB.

In the first instance, we note that OCB is described as being driven by prosocial values (Rioux & Penner, 2001), and has been positioned as a manifestation of morality at work (Gerpott, et al., 2019; Ryan, 2001). It is said to emerge from moral thoughts about the components of good behavior (Colquitt et al., 2006) and its expression is said to emanate from the realm of moral traits (Bolino, et al., 2013). Thus, with the display of OCB being adjacent to moral calculi, both concepts are necessarily entwined affording a rationale for their conjoined exploration.

One model that has richly contributed to the exploration of applied morality is Moral Foundations theory (MF, Graham et al., 2013). MF theory stipulates that a number of moral premises or foundations are intuitively invoked in determining behavior (Haidt & Joseph, 2004; Maxwell & Narvaez, 2013). The five that have been most commonly explored comprise Harm, which represents concerns about violence and the suffering of others and includes compassion; Fairness which concerns the norms of reciprocal relations such as equality and justice; Loyalty covers the moral obligations related to group membership; Authority represents the moral obligations related to hierarchical structures such as respect for superiors; and Purity represents the moral ideal of living in a noble way.

A limited studies of the relationships between these five MF and psychopathy have been undertaken. Aharoni and et al. (2011) found negative associations between psychopathy as measured by the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003), and two of the five domains of MF among a forensic sample. The results of Glenn et al. (2009) based on the Levenson measure of psychopathy (Levenson, et al., 1995) mirrored this pattern amongst a large sample of website subscribers. However, a study by Ye and et al. (2021) also using this measure did not replicate this pattern of results. Further, resting their analysis on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld et al., 2005), Cardinale and Marsh (2015) did not find that MF could predict psychopathy in an experimental study among college students. Taken together, these findings indicate that relationship between MF and psychopathy is complex.

One route to explicating such matters has been to consider the five moral foundations in terms of two over-arching factors, namely individualizing and binding (Graham et al., 2011, 2013). The former relates to the protection of individual rights and incorporates harm and fairness, while the latter relates to the need to create community and subsumes loyalty, authority, and purity. Individualizing foundations are said to operate as a function of ‘core’ values that are stable across time and situations, with binding foundations being triggered by context-specific characteristics (Napier et al., 2013).

Studies have demonstrated that considering MF in terms of these two factors reveals complex associations between them with respect to empathic and prosocial outcomes. (e.g. Dawson et al., 2021). In a study concerning political ideology and motivated social cognition, Strupp-Levitsky and et al (2020) found that individualizing foundations predicted empathic motivation, while binding foundations did not. Similarly, Clark and et al. (2017) found that individualizing foundations were strongly associated with prosocial behavior in the context of behavioral economic games while binding foundations did not show the same associations. In a study of hypothetical charitable giving, Nilsson et al. (2020) found that stronger individualizing foundations predicted prosocial behavior towards out-groups, while binding foundations predicted such behavior but only with respect to in-group members. A mini meta-analysis found that individualizing foundations were related to values concerning self-transcendence and self-enhancement, while binding foundations were related to values associated with conservation and openness-to-change (Feldman, 2021). Resting on these studies, we propose that individualizing and binding foundations will differentially influence the relationship between psychopathic traits and leader OCB.

We propose that individualizing foundations mediate the relationships between boldness and OCB such that leaders who are higher in boldness would exhibit higher levels of OCB via higher individualizing MF. Bold individuals demonstrate a rational and calculating, yet self-serving approach to moral decision-making (Walsh, 2017), thus, they may see the promotion of individualizing MF as a route to achieving their long-term personal goals and interests, thus ultimately benefitting themselves in the long run (Miller, 2020). Psychopathic boldness is also particularly associated with manipulative skills (Brazil, et al., 2021), and individualizing MF offer a route to the manipulation others by resonating fairness, even if their true motivations are self-serving (Grieve et al., 2010). Boldness is also associated with instrumental morality (Porter et al., 2006) and pragmatism, allowing the performance of individualizing MF to serve as a strategic route to advance such individuals’ interests. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is stated:

Hypothesis 4:

Individualizing MF mediate the relationships between boldness and OCB such that leaders higher in boldness would exhibit higher levels of OCB via higher individualizing MF.

As binding MF show weaker associations with prosocial behaviors towards out-group than in-group members, we propose that leaders higher in meanness will exhibit lower levels of OCB via lower binding MF. We rest this contention on the negative associations between meanness and concern for the welfare of others (Patrick, et al., 2009) and the concomitant low concern for outgroup members associated with binding MF (Malka, et al., 2016). Moreover, the moral relativism associated with meanness (Shoemaker, 2011) can lead such individuals to justify actions that violate binding MF in favor of selfish ends. Thus, a low regard for binding MF should reduce OCB.

We further propose that leaders higher in disinhibition will also exhibit lower levels of OCB via lower binding MF. Disinhibition drives behaviors associated with immediate gratification of desire and a lack of consideration for moral norms. As a result, people with higher levels of disinhibition disregard social rules and etiquette (Besta, et al., 2021; Lorettu et al., 2017), diluting the processes of careful moral reasoning and decision-making (Almeida, et al., 2015; Maibom, 2022). The readiness with which such individuals engage in behaviors that disrupt social harmony (Levenson, et al., 1995) contradicts the essence of binding MF, which, in turn, we propose, is likely to reduce OCB. Resting on these foundations, the following hypothesis is stated:

Hypothesis 5:

Binding MF mediate the relationships between (a) meanness and OCB such that people higher in meanness exhibit lower levels of OCB via lower binding MF, and (b) disinhibition and OCB such that people higher in disinhibition exhibit lower levels of OCB via lower binding MF.

Data and Methods

Background, Participants and Procedures

This study took place using a sample of participants from the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals (NAPD) which is the representative body of school leaders in Ireland. It was established in 1997 to foster the nation-wide development of school leadership based upon philosophical and moral principles as well as professional skills. It has nine regional branches and is led by an Executive Committee with a mission to provide a united voice for secondary school (high school) Principals and Deputy Principals on issues of common concern. Principals are appointed from the teaching profession and have at least 5 years teaching experience. Many will have related diplomas (e.g. management, administration, education) as well as non-accredited courses for school leaders.

The NADP was approached to participate in this research for three reasons: first its members constitute a collective body of professional leaders which was the desired sample for our research study. Second, destructive behaviour which has clear theoretical links with psychopathy (Einarsen et al., 2020) is not rare among school officials (Datta et al., 2017; Lester et al., 2017). Finally, school environments are inherently moral (Arthur et al., 2005) and the promotion of OCB among schools has been identified as an important contextual feature (Somech et al., 2020). Taken together, this association represented a fertile ground for our study and they agreed to email their membership body (N = 1035) with an invitation to participate in the research.

Data were collected using an online self-report survey hosted by the Qualtrics platform. 224 responses were received representing an acceptable response rate of 22% for online surveys (Bell, et al., 2022). 14 of these were excluded for non-completion leaving a sample of 210 (62.4% female). Participation was voluntary and unpaid, and anonymity was ensured. The study received ethical approval from the University Ethics Committee and all ethical research procedures were followed.

Measures

The Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM; Patrick, 2010), a 58-item self-report inventory assessed Boldness, Meanness and Disinhibition. Scale items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = true, 4 = false). Reliability values for Boldness (α = 0.83; e.g., “I’m a born leader”), Meanness (α = 0.88 e.g., “I don’t mind if someone I dislike gets hurt”), and Disinhibition (α = 0.79 e.g., “I have taken money from someone’s purse or wallet without asking”).

OCB was measured using a self-report 15-item scale (Smith, et al., 1983), with items rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = not at all characteristic of me, 4 = very characteristic of me). A sample item from this scale is “I help others who have been absent” and the reliability was in line with existing studies (α = 0.77).

Moral Foundations were measured using a 30-item scale (Graham et al., 2009) split into two sections comprising 16 items each. The 16th item in each section were attention checks and not used in the analysis. In the first section measuring moral relevance, participants first read “When you decide whether something is right or wrong, to what extent are the following considerations relevant to your thinking?” They then rated each item on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = not at all relevant, 6 = extremely relevant). A sample item is “Whether or not someone was harmed”.

Section two measures moral judgements and participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with 16 items on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). A sample item is “Compassion for those who are suffering is the most crucial virtue.” In line with Yilmaz et al. (2017), composite scores for individualising (MFI) and binding (MFB) factors were obtained by averaging the scores of moral foundations informing each factor respectively. Reliability scores for both factors were within acceptable range: MFI α = 0.77; MFB α = 0.85.

To assess common method variance, we employed a one-factor confirmatory factor analysis following Harman’s single-factor analysis (Podsakoff et al., 2012). This model posits that a sole common factor accounts for the covariance among all items in the model. The fit analysis yielded unfavourable results (Chi-square (5150) = 8654.794; p < 0.05, CFI = 0.188, TLI = 0.171, RMSEA = 0.063, SRMR = 0.105). To compare the two models, a Chi-square difference test was performed using the Lavaan function in R. The findings indicated that the multi-factor model (Model 1) exhibited a superior fit to the data compared to the single-factor model (Model 2), as evidenced by a higher number of free estimated parameters and fewer degrees of freedom. Additionally, AIC/BIC values for the multi-factor model were closer to 0 than those for the single-factor model. See Table 1.

Table 1 Confirmatory factor analysis
Full size table

Results and Discussion

Correlation Results

In line with our predictions, Boldness was positively correlated with OCB (r(210) = 0.313**, p < 0.01), while correlations between both Meanness (r(210) =  − 0.226**, p < 0.01), and Disinhibition (r(210) =  − 0.237*, p < 0.05) were negative, thus supporting H1, H2 and H3. It is interesting to note that the correlation between the composite TriPM and OCB was nonsignificant ((p = 0.873). Each facet of psychopathy was negatively correlated with both MFI (Meanness: r(210) =  − 0.444**, p < 0.01; Disinhibition: r(210) =  − 0.149**, p < 0.01; Boldness: r(210) =  − 0.121, p = 0.081) and MFB (Meanness: r(210) =  − 0.231**, p < 0.01; Boldness: r(210) =  − 0.194**, p < 0.01; Disinhibition: r(210) =  − 0.059, p = 0.397). Correlations between the composite TriPM and both MFI (r(210) =  − 0.360**, p < 0.01) and MFB (r(210) =  − 0.265**, p < 0.01) were also negative. See Table 2.

Table 2 Correlation matrix
Full size table

Mediation

Mediation analysis was conducted using the SEM function within the Lavaan package in R (version 4.0.2) and bootstrapping (5000 boot samples) was applied (Bollen & Stine, 1990) to test the indirect effect of each facet of psychopathy on OCB via MFI and MFB.

The direct effects of Meanness (β =  − 0.130, p = 0.123, CI = [− 0.297, 0.019]) and Disinhibition (β =  − 0.032, p = 0.685, CI = [− 0.211, 0.138]) on OCB were non-significant while the direct effect of Boldness on OCB was positive and significant (β = 0.343, p < 0.001, CI = [0.153, 0.343]). See Table 3

Table 3 Direct relationships
Full size table

In the model examining MFI as a mediator, the indirect effect of Meanness on OCB was negative and significant (β =  − 0.112, p < 0.05, CI = [− 0.234, − 0.019]). The indirect effects of Boldness (β =  − 0.013, p = 0.477, CI = [− 0.036, 0.014]) and Disinhibition (β =  − 0.022, p = 0.245, CI = [− 0.016, 0.070])) on OCB were non-significant. (See Figs. 1, 2, and 3). Hypothesis 4 is not supported.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Regression coefficient for the relationship between Meanness and OCB as mediated by MF Individualizing

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Regression coefficient for the relationship between Boldness and OCB as mediated by MF Individualizing

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Regression coefficient for the relationship between Disinhibition and OCB as mediated by MF Individualizing

Full size image

In the model examining MFB as a mediator, the indirect effects of Meanness (β =  − 0.003, p = 0.829, CI = [− 0.038, 0.035]), Boldness (β =  − 0.002, p = 0.829, CI = [− 0.024, 0.019]) and Disinhibition (β = 0.002, p = 0.981, CI = [− 0.012, 0.012]) on OCB were negative and non-significant. (See Figs. 4, 5, and 6). Hypothesis 5 is not supported.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Regression coefficient for the relationship between Meanness and OCB as mediated by MF Binding

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Regression coefficient for the relationship between Boldness and OCB as mediated by MF Binding

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Regression coefficient for the relationship between Disinhibition and OCB as mediated by MF Binding

Full size image

In the model examining MFI as a mediator, the indirect effect of Composite TriPM on OCB was negative and significant (β =  − 0.108, p = 0.018, CI = [− 0.299, − 0.045]), while the direct effect was found to be non-significant (β = 0.088, p = 0.255, CI = [− 0.100, 0.340] See Fig. 7). In the model examining MFB as a mediator, the indirect effect of Composite TriPM on OCB was non-significant (β = 0.008, p = 0.706, CI = [− 0.046, 0.084]), while the direct effect was found to be non-significant (β = 0.088, p = 0.255, CI = [− 0.100, 0.340] See Fig. 8).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Regression coefficient for the relationship between Composite Psychopathy and OCB as mediated by MF Individualizing

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

Regression coefficient for the relationship between Composite Psychopathy and OCB as mediated by MF Binding

Full size image

Discussion

The first purpose of this study was to explore the associations between three facets of psychopathy and leader OCB. In line with our propositions, we found that boldness was positively associated with leader OCB, while both meanness and disinhibition were negatively associated with leader OCB.

The positive association found between boldness and OCB supports much other work attesting to boldness representing the adaptive facet of psychopathy (Neo et al., 2018; Patrick, 2022). With boldness already being associated with prosocial and altruistic behaviors in high-stress first-responder occupations such as fire-fighting (Patton et al., 2018), we add to this literature by demonstrating that this association persists within more benign leadership contexts. Not only does this lend additional weight to the veracity of this relationship attested to by Preston et al. (2022), but it also sounds a cautionary note to the general pejorative characterisation of leaders with psychopathic traits.

The identification of a negative association between meanness and OCB is consistent with studies that characterise meanness as embodying a disdain for attachment and social connectedness (Cohen et al., 2014). This finding aligns with studies associating meanness with poor interpersonal functioning (Skeem et al., 2007) and destructive leadership styles (Mathieu & Babiak, 2016). It also adds increased validity to studies identifying meanness with counterproductive workplace behavior and further confirms the results of Preston et al. (2022).

The additional identification of a negative association between disinhibition and OCB is consistent with studies associating disinhibition with a poor ability to support the needs of others (Vaidya, et al., 2010), counterproductive work behavior (Blickle, et al., 2018), staff burnout and abusive supervision (Sutton et al., 2020). It supports research findings that people with higher levels of disinhibition are weak in the ability to engage in self-regulation in the service of others or behave in a responsible, proactive and conscientious manner (Watson et al., 2008). This association also aligns with the established connection between disinhibition and impatience (Krueger, et al., 2007), in that OCB would be viewed as a waste of time (Jochemczyk, et al., 2017). That this result conflicts with Preston et al. (2022) suggests their caution concerning their findings was well-placed, whereas our study allows greater confidence in the negative direction of the relationship between these two variables.

It is interesting to note that the composite psychopathy score had a negative but nonsignificant association with leader OCB, a finding that accords with Cohen and Abedallah (2021), Al-Abrrow et al. (2020); Szabó and et al. (2018) and Webster and Smith (2019). As none of these studies used a facet-based measure of psychopathy, our findings add further weight to the value of exploring the dimensions of psychopathy to allow its complexities to be revealed.

The second purpose of our study was to examine the mediating roles of individualizing and binding moral foundations within the associations between facets of psychopathy and leader OCB. Contrary to our hypotheses, our results showed that only individualizing foundations played a mediating role such that higher levels of meanness led to strong negative individualizing foundations which in turn reduced leader OCB. This result provides much-needed empirical data for assertions concerning the moral impoverishment of psychopaths (Larsen, et al., 2020). Moreover, it endorses the distinct flavors of psychopathy (Bader, et al., 2023), and reinforces meanness as the most sinister element of the dark core of personality (Szabó et al., 2018). That the absence of moral concerns was revealed as a mechanism by which meanness reduced leader OCB echoes Murdoch and Midgley’s (2013) proposition that selfishness is no route to virtuousness. It was also the case that higher levels of the composite TriPM score also predicted strong negative individualizing foundations and lower leader OCB. This result affirms the absence of a moral scaffold within the behavioral repertoire of people high in psychopathy (Luke et al., 2021; Schramme, 2014) and aligns with the well-documented deleterious consequences of this personality trait (Landay, et al., 2019).

In opposition to our hypotheses, we found no support for any mediating effects of individualizing or binding foundations on the relationships between both boldness and disinhibition and leader OCB. While the negative relationships between these moral foundations and both these facets of psychopathy may explain these results, our findings align with the sentiment that psychopaths are fundamentally amoral (Jonason, et al., 2015).

It is interesting to note that leaders higher in meanness and disinhibition felt more negatively about individualizing foundations than binding foundations, while leaders higher in boldness felt more negatively about binding foundations than individualizing foundations. As meanness is characterised by egocentricity (Cleckley, 1941), deficient empathy (Ali, et al, 2009) and a disdain for attachment (Hare & Neumann, 2008), while disinhibition is associated with impatience and the drive for personal gratification (Tsang, et al., 2014), it stands to reason that negative individualizing foundations would relate more strongly to these elements of psychopathy. These findings corroborate the work of Clark et al. (2017), Nilsson et al. (2020), and Strupp-Levitsky et al. (2020), which found that individualising foundations were associated with empathic motivation. As both meanness and disinhibition are commonly distinguished from boldness with respect to their darker components (Viding & Kimonis, 2018), it stands to reason that the absence of empathy that characterises these traits is associated with lower concern towards individualizing moral foundations. Although boldness is characterised as the adaptive facet of psychopathy (Neo et al., 2018), boldness is also associated with an assertive and socially dominant interpersonal style, independent thought and lack of restraint (Pechorro et al., 2021). Thus, it follows that binding foundations which relate to community-enhancing leanings would be particularly unattractive to such individuals.

Theoretical Contributions

Taken together, our work advances the theoretical positioning of psychopathy as a multi-faceted variable and our results should encourage scholars to continue to explore the dimensional nature of psychopathy as a route to deriving increasingly sophisticated understandings of its nature. Failure to examine the facets of this trait may compromise a thorough appreciation of its vicissitudes and allow opportunities for insight to be missed. By demonstrating that dark traits have a ‘bright side’ (Smith et al., 2018), we add legitimacy to the theoretical contention that boldness might not constitute a core component of psychopathy (Gatner, et al., 2016).

Our findings also advance the theory of corporate psychopathy by providing corroborating evidence for its stipulation that people with psychopathic traits can simultaneously be a benefit and a cost to organizations (Walker & Jackson, 2017). The positive association between boldness and leader OCB confirms that such individuals can contribute positively to the workplace environment (Benning et al., 2018), but the negative associations between both meanness and disinhibition and leader OCB reveal the accompanying costs that psychopaths bring to organisational environment (Smith et al., 2014). That no salutary role was identified for morality in increasing the functional behavior of psychopaths, and, in fact, that reduced moral concerns enhanced non-engagement in OCB endorses the contention within corporate psychopathy theory that such individuals pose risks to the ethical functioning of organizations (Boddy, 2006).

Taken together, these findings lay down a challenge for future studies to identify mechanisms by which the positive consequences of boldness can be advanced while the deleterious effects of meanness can be held in check. Studies informed by Behavioral Activation/Inhibition Theory (Gray, 1973) hold much promise in this regard, while insights from the field of cognitive neuroscience concerning the role of the brain in ethical behavior (Robertson, et al., 2017) may serve as an additional fruitful line of inquiry.

Finally, our study highlights the continued value of applying the tenets of moral foundation theory beyond the political field where it is most commonly applied (Kivikangas, et al., 2021). We also endorse the utility of distinguishing between individualizing and binding moral foundations by contributing new insights into the varied associations between these two domains of moral concern and psychopathic traits. While different associations have been identified between individualizing and binding moral foundations and the Big Five personality traits (Alper et al., 2019), in providing evidence that similarly varied associations occur with dark personality characteristics, our study calls attention to the illuminating capacity of moral foundations theory in illustrating complex personality dimensions.

Practical Implications for Business and Society

This study speaks to the complex nature of psychopathic traits and their behavioral manifestations. Psychopaths use their intelligence and cunning to rise through an organization’s ranks (LeBreton et al., 2006). Often considering others to be weak, vulnerable and open to exploitation (Black, et al., 2014), these individuals commonly engage in behaviors that create an unhealthy and toxic work environment. While not comprehensively treacherous as indicated by our findings, their impulsive behavior and rash decision-making can lead to costly mistakes and adverse outcomes for all concerned (Blickle & Schütte, 2017). Organizations should, therefore, be wary of employing such individuals in the first place. In practice, that means deploying effective, robust and psychometrically sound assessment techniques of all job applicants so that those possessing such traits are screened out of the employee selection process (Fischbacher-Smith, 2015). As people with psychopathic traits can be charming and seductive, even achieving positive evaluations from others (LeBreton et al., 2018), those charged with staffing the organizations are advised to ensure that such measures from part of the employee selection procedure rather than an over-reliance on the standard selection interview (Dipboye & Johnson, 2013). Along with personality tests that track psychopathic traits (Hogan, 2009), organizations could use non-traditional and indirect measurement techniques such as conditional reasoning tests to help identify individuals with aggression predisposed to engaging in hostile behaviors (James & LeBreton, 2012). Moreover, organizational leadership development programmes should carefully assess potential participants on such programmes and nurture those individuals capable of displaying exemplary organizational behavior. In-depth 360-degree evaluations (Craig et al., 2006) and assessment centre methodologies (Parr, et al., 2016) should be used to ensure the leadership cohort is characterised by integrity and balanced personality traits.

In the event that selection methods are deficient at identifying such traits and allow these individuals gain entry to an organization, appropriate and effective policies and procedures should be in place that address and manage the inappropriate or harmful behavior they are likely to display (Armstrong, 2006). The conclusions of Ellemers, et al. (2019), suggest that taking account of contextual features such as organizational norms, team climates, and leadership behaviors may confer additional benefits. Thus, we suggest that organizations attend to the policies, procedures and processes that establish cultural mores supportive of desirable behavior, such that nefarious behavior is not inadvertently condoned in the organizational environment. Attending to this matter at the level of the organization and units within it rather than solely at the level of the individual can further support adherence to such norms as individuals are more likely to comply with what has been established as a group norm. Organizations need to ensure that employees are aware of these policies and feel comfortable reporting any concerns they may have. In addition, organizations should consider implementing training programmes and codes of conduct that promote ethical behavior and a positive work-place culture (Laurijssen et al., 2023; Sekerka, et al., 2014). They should establish a zero-tolerance policy (Pastorek et al., 2015) for dark behaviors with regular performance review meetings where such behaviors are noted and addressed in a meaningful manner.

We identify two primary social implications that arise from this study. In the first instance, the generally categorisation of psychopaths as wholesale pernicious individuals elides the data and has wide-reaching social implications. Media portrayals that fuel this characterisation misunderstand the complexities and varied manifestations of psychopathy, and yield an unnecessary level fear in social environs. Further, it may drive the wholesale exclusion of such individuals such that their adaptive traits are lost to contexts when they are beneficial. Understanding the nuances helps in recognizing that not all individuals with psychopathic traits are violent or criminal, and this awareness is important for ensuring fair treatment and avoiding unnecessary marginalisation. It can help in developing preventive strategies and interventions, especially in contexts like law enforcement where recognising these traits can be crucial.

The second, more dark, social implication of this study is that the characterisation of psychopaths as morally bereft remains in place, thus any appeals to their better angels for morally informed behavior are likely to fall on stony soil. Recognizing the tendency towards amorality in psychopaths is crucial for assessing potential risks they may pose and for informing considerations around their rehabilitation that may arise in certain contexts. This underscores the importance of ethical and moral standards in maintaining societal harmony and the potential disruption caused by those who consistently violate these standards.

Limitations and Future Directions

While a key strength of this study is its field setting with a difficult-to-access sample, a number of limitations can still be identified. The primary limitation is its exploratory nature, thus future research is needed to replicate the findings. The use of a self-report measure of psychopathy also has limitations as psychopaths are frequently dishonest (Miller & Lynam, 2003). However, as psychopathic individuals may be no better at dishonest reporting than non-psychopathic individuals (Verschuere, et al., 2014), we do not consider this to be particularly problematic. We also acknowledge that leaders inherently oriented towards prosociality may be pre-disposed to participate in a survey to support a research effort, meaning that the data retrieved may be skewed rather than representative of leaders.Footnote 1 However, as the pattern of results is not unusual within the prevailing literature, we do not regard this as a significant matter for concern. Nonetheless, future studies could protect from the risk of skewness by undertaking randomised or stratified sampling techniques as well as careful data cleaning. While we included attention checks in our data collection, future research could consider objective measures of workplace behaviors such as workplace disciplinary reports in place of or in addition to self-report measures. Although we found no evidence of common method bias, our cross-sectional study does not allow cause-and-effect inferences to be drawn (Bell, et al., 2022). A future experimental or longitudinal study may yield more clarity on causal effects. Finally, although there is evidence that psychopathy is dimensional rather than taxonic (e.g., Edens, et al., 2006), our sample was composed of individuals within the teaching profession and thus is limited given its poor coverage of extreme psychopathic individuals. Future research should replicate the current findings in contexts where psychopathy may be more prevalent and within more diverse occupational fields.

Beyond these methodological recommendations, we encourage the exploration of alternative mediators of the adaptive behaviour of leaders with psychopathic traits. Contextual features such as reward and recognition, as well as individual characteristics such as perspective taking, careerism and work role perceptions may be useful avenues to examine in this regard. An additional line of inquiry could focus on the OCB of subordinates working under bold psychopaths. While counterproductive work behavior has been found in those employees who work under corporate psychopaths (Smith & Lilienfeld, 2013), studies also show that OCB in leaders nurtures OCB in followers (Yaffe & Kark, 2011). Thus, an interesting avenue to explore would be whether such consequences would emerge when the leader demonstrating OCB has psychopathic traits.Footnote 2

Concluding Remarks

This study set out to explore the relationship between leaders’ psychopathic traits and their demonstration of OCB, and to examine whether moral foundations contributed to this behavior. We conclude that morality plays no role in the adaptive behavior of leaders with psychopathic traits. Instead, each facet of psychopathy was negatively associated morality which, on occasion, led to a reduction in OCB. Overall, we concur with prior reports concerning the absence of a moral code amongst people with psychopathic traits.