JOMXXX10.1177/0149206317733511Journal of ManagementSmith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright 733511research-article2017 Journal of Management Vol. 44 No. 1, January 2018 191 –217 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/014920631773351110.1177/0149206317733511 © The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright Personality: A Multidomain Review and Future Research Agenda Mickey B. Smith University of South Alabama Aaron D. Hill Oklahoma State University J. Craig Wallace University of Denver Tessa Recendes Oklahoma State University Timothy A. Judge Ohio State University It has become common practice to refer to personality traits as being either bright or dark, and a wealth of research has provided support for the effects of both bright traits and dark traits in organizations. This research has largely focused on explaining the downside of dark traits and the upside of bright traits. However, a recent trend has emerged in which scholars are challenging the long-standing convention that bright traits are always beneficial and dark traits are always detrimental. Instead, novel research has begun to explore the potential upside of dark traits and downside of bright traits. In this review, we adopt a multidomain perspec- tive—integrating work from organizational behavior, human resources, strategic management, and entrepreneurship—to highlight this growing body of research. Specifically, we focus on the work advancing our understanding of the complexity of personality, such as identifying situa- tions in which dark traits may be advantageous or beneficial and detecting curvilinear effects that suggest too much of a bright trait may be disadvantageous. Furthermore, we provide a Acknowledgments: This article was accepted under the editorship of Patrick M. Wright. We would like to thank the editorial team, our action editors David G. Allen and Ernest H. O’Boyle, and two anonymous reviewers for their guidance throughout the revision process. Corresponding author: Mickey B. Smith, Department of Management, Mitchell College of Business, University of South Alabama, 5811 USA Drive South, Mobile, AL 36688-0002, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 191 192 Journal of Management / January 2018 brief discussion on special considerations for the measurement of both bright and dark traits and close with a series of avenues for future research. Keywords: personality; top management teams/upper echelon; entrepreneurship Personality is ubiquitous in organizations—affecting individual actions, group/team behavior, and organizational-level outcomes (e.g., Finkelstein, Hambrick, & Canella, 2009; J. Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2010; Spain, Harms, & LeBreton, 2014)—and has a rich history of study within management research. The evolution of this research in management, as well as related disciplines (e.g., social psychology, finance), has yielded various models of per- sonality composed of two “shades” of traits: bright traits, defined as those typically seen as socially desirable, and dark traits, defined as those typically seen as socially undesirable (for a thorough discussion, see Judge & LePine, 2007). This bright-dark dichotomy of traits is not meant to imply a moral or ethical connotation to specific traits but rather follows a traditional view among scholars that some traits, those viewed as bright, are beneficial for individuals and organizations (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), whereas other traits, those seen as dark, are detrimental (e.g., O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012; Spain et al., 2014). Despite a wealth of research consistent with the notions that “bright traits are beneficial” and “dark traits are detrimental,” emerging evidence suggests that the effects of personality in organizations are far more complex than previously observed. For example, extreme levels of bright traits, such as being too conscientious, may lead to deleterious outcomes to the degree they are maladaptive to certain situations (e.g., Carter, Guan, Maples, Williamson, & Miller, 2015; Judge & LePine, 2007), and higher levels of certain dark traits, like narcissism, may be beneficial in certain situations to the degree they facilitate benefits via means such as higher levels of adaptive or agentic behaviors (e.g., Castille, Buckner, & Thoroughgood, in press; Petrenko, Aime, Ridge, & Hill, 2016). In this review, we examine the burgeoning lit- erature on the bright side of dark traits and the dark side of bright traits across all manage- ment domains (i.e., organizational behavior, human resources, strategy, entrepreneurship, groups and teams, research methods). We close with a discussion of current limitations in the literature and offer an agenda for future research. Literature Review Our distinction of bright and dark traits follows prior patterns (e.g., Judge & LePine, 2007). Traits composing traditional models of personality, such as the five-factor model (FFM, or Big 5; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and the six-factor HEXACO—for Honesty-Humility (H), Emotionality (E), Extraversion (X), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), and Openness to Experience (O) (Ashton, Lee, & Goldberg, 2004)—are normally seen as bright traits in that they are desirable and relate to positive outcomes (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). In contrast, traits such as those in the Dark Triad (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), the Dark Tetrad (Paulhus, 2014; Plouffe, Saklofske, & Smith, 2017), and the multifactor model of aberrant personality (Wille, De Fruyt, & De Clercq, Smith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright 193 2013) are commonly referred to as dark traits and are seen as undesirable. The bright and dark distinction is not meant to imply a moral or ethical divide. The categorizations corre- spond to the evolution of a larger bright and dark dichotomy in psychology and management research; thus, consistent with previous researchers, we employ these terms here for both parsimony and uniformity while remaining agnostic to any moral or ethical considerations (Judge & LePine, 2007). Indeed, many of the traits in early models of personality (e.g., the Big 5) focus on morally and ethically neutral characteristics but note their general benefits to people and organizations. Subsequently, the tradition has been to approach bright traits as generally desirable while reprobating dark traits as generally undesirable. A wealth of research exists showing the benefits of bright traits and the drawbacks of dark traits, so it would appear relatively easy to assume that bright traits lead only to desirable outcomes and dark traits are universally bad. However, a growing body of research suggests this to be an oversimplification. Rather, all personality traits—bright or dark—are likely to have upsides and downsides. Traits typically seen as bright traits may incorporate maladap- tive qualities that are detrimental in some instances, such as prosocial orientation being asso- ciated with oversensitivity to aggression (e.g., Schwenzer, 2008). Conversely, traits typically seen as dark may beget benefits in certain situations, such as the agentic social style associ- ated with the Dark Triad, which helps individuals to extract key resources from their environ- ment (e.g., Jonason, Li, & Teicher, 2010; see also Carter et al., 2015; Judge & LePine, 2007; Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009). This research—focusing on the downsides of bright traits and the upsides of dark traits—is the focus of our review. The domain of personality is broad and includes many traits, and so reviewing each and every bright or dark trait would be unwieldy. Thus, we had to both narrow our focus on some traits to the exclusion of others while also attempting to be representative and comprehensive (cf. Short, 2009). Since our focus was the upside of traits typically seen as dark and vice versa, we used various methods to systematically identify research to be included in the review. Specifically, we took the following approaches: (1) we conducted a general database search (e.g., Web of Science) for the term personality coupled with various descriptors, such as bright, dark, upside, downside, and curvilinear, among others; (2) we focused on research, as much as possible, specifically appearing in management and applied psychology journals (e.g., Journal of Management, Journal of Applied Psychology) along with relevant literature from personality journals (e.g., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology); (3) we used recent reviews, meta-analyses, and feedback from the editor and reviewers as sources for identifying additional relevant traits and literature; and (4) we made sure to highlight literature in the context of each of the primary domains in management research. As a result of this search process, we offer Table 1 as a summary of the bright and dark traits we include in the review, and we also point to other sources that extend beyond what we offer here (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Finkelstein et al., 2009; J. Hogan et al., 2010; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002; Judge & LePine, 2007; O’Boyle et al., 2012; Spain et al., 2014). We provide the trait, the source of the trait, and a sum- mary of the components or facets composing the trait. Organizational Behavior Dark traits. Several meta-analyses and literature reviews highlight how dark traits posi- tively relate to undesirable workplace outcomes, such as counterproductive work behav- iors (CWBs), abusive supervision, unethical behavior, and job