European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20 Why employee psychopathy leads to counterproductive workplace behaviours : an analysis of the underlying mechanisms Miriam Schilbach , Anja Baethge & Thomas Rigotti To cite this article: Miriam Schilbach , Anja Baethge & Thomas Rigotti (2020) Why employee psychopathy leads to counterproductive workplace behaviours : an analysis of the underlying mechanisms, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29:5, 693-706, DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2020.1739650 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1739650 View supplementary material Published online: 20 Mar 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 249 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 2020, VOL. 29, NO. 5, 693–706 https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1739650 Why employee psychopathy leads to counterproductive workplace behaviours : an analysis of the underlying mechanisms Miriam Schilbach a, Anja Baethgeb and Thomas Rigotti a,c aLeibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany; bDepartment of Psychology, Medical School Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany; cDepartment of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The purpose of this study is to examine possible explanatory mechanisms linking employee secondary Received 16 September 2019 psychopathy to counterproductive workplace behaviour (CWB). Based on the emotion-centred model of Accepted 4 March 2020 voluntary work behaviour we argue that secondary psychopathy is characterized by unfavourable KEYWORDS ff cognitive appraisal tendencies, which in turn positively relate to negative a ectivity. We further assume corporate psychopathy; that this cognitive-affective process enhances CWB. We also include primary psychopathy into our appraisal; negative affect; research model to test if the presumed mechanism applies to both psychopathy dimensions. We Counterproductive Work collected daily-survey data from 470 employees (1670 days) and analysed these data using multilevel Behaviour (CWB); serial structured equation modelling. We found strong support for the hypothesized serial mediation model, mediation indicating that secondary psychopathy triggers dysfunctional cognitive-affective tendencies and conse- quently increases the likelihood of CWB. The proposed model did not hold up for primary psychopathy. Our study outlines the presence of distorted cognition-affective patterns in employee secondary psycho- pathy only. These patterns seem to play a key role in explaining the link between employee secondary psychopathy and deviant workplace behaviour. Based on this procedural knowledge relevant implica- tions for theory and practice are provided. Introduction commonly operationalized psychopathy as a unidimensional construct (e.g., Baloch et al., 2017; Palmer et al., 2017). A Depending on the utilized diagnostic criteria, prevalence recently conducted study however highlighted the pivotal rates for corporate psychopathy range from roughly 1% up role of disinhibition, a hallmark feature of secondary psycho- to 9.5% (Coid et al., 2012;Hare,2003). On a subclinical level, pathy in positively predicting CWB (Neo et al., 2018). Fittingly, thenumbersareassumedtobemuchhigher(cf.,Forster& Blickle and Schütte (2017) as well as Schütte et al. (2018) show Lund, 2018). Thus, individuals exhibiting psychopathic ten- that secondary psychopathy positively relates to CWB while dencies represent a substantial part of our workforce, striv- primary psychopathy only relates to CWB if education or poli- ing for power and control, potentially willing to engage in tical skills were low. Consequently, the present study attempts unethical behaviour to attain their goals (Jonason & Ferrell, to derive an explanatory mechanism linking secondary psycho- 2016; Semenyna & Honey, 2015). Empirical research high- pathy, the seemingly more predictive psychopathy dimension lights the detrimental effects psychopathic tendencies may for deviant workplace behaviour, to CWB. We will further ana- have via extreme work behaviours, such as manipulation, lyse if the presumed process explaining the link between sec- intimidation or coercion causing conflicts, impaired well- ondary psychopathy and CWB also applies to primary being among co-workers, and decreased organizational pro- psychopathy. By doing so we intent to test whether the ductivity (Blickle & Schütte, 2017;Boddyetal.,2015;Walker hypothesized relationships are indeed specific to secondary &Jackson,2017). The financial damages in the United States psychopathy. associated with such behaviours are estimated at several Based on the emotion-centred model of voluntary work hundred billion dollars every year (McGee & Fillon, 1995; behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002) we argue that cognitive Murphy, 1993) not taking into account the vast negative appraisal of the workday and the resulting emotions represent impact on psychological well-being of individuals who have an explanatory process as to why secondary psychopathy posi- fallen victim to psychopathic schemes. Thus, the present tively relates to CWB. Presumably, due to high levels of disin- study aims to better comprehend underlying mechanisms hibition and reflection impulsivity we hypothesize that causing employees with psychopathic features to engage in secondary psychopathy contributes to viewing the workday counterproductive work behaviours (CWB). as less challenging and simultaneously more hindering as well Despite the widely acknowledged two-dimensionality of as threatening. We further argue that this pattern of cognitive psychopathy (i.e., primary and secondary psychopathy; appraisal relates to negative emotions, which in turn enhance Cleckley, 1976; Falkenbach et al., 2008; Levenson et al., 1995), CWB (Dalal et al., 2009; Spector & Fox, 2002). earlier research on the link between psychopathy and CWB CONTACT Miriam Schilbach [email protected]; [email protected] Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here. © 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis 694 M. SCHILBACH ET AL. The present study contributes to the growing body of 2010). Furthermore they often appear to be charming persua- research suggesting secondary psychopathy to be of high rele- sive individuals with high intelligence and abilities on first vance in predicting CWB (Blickle & Schütte, 2017; Neo et al., impression (Lilienfeld et al., 2015; Patrick et al., 2009). 2018; Schütte et al., 2018). Taking appraisal and emotional Secondary psychopathy on the other hand, develops from processes into account, our study provides an explanatory environmental causes and thus represents an acquired affec- mechanism as to why secondary psychopathy traits may trans- tive disturbance (Del Gaizo & Falkenbach, 2008; Skeem et al., late into deviant workplace behaviour. Understanding mechan- 2007). It is associated with poor behavioural control often isms behind the behavioural manifestation of psychopathic linked to high levels of impulsivity, a lacking ability to set traits represents a first step towards preventing the negative long-term, realistic goals, and a proneness to boredom impact secondary psychopathy potentially disperses within the (Hare, 2003; Levenson et al., 1995). Unlike the low levels of work environment. Additionally, by including primary psycho- anxiety and inability to feel remorse in primary psychopathy pathy into our analyses we outline that the two psychopathy (Cleckley, 1976; Harpur et al., 1989), secondary psychopathy is dimensions may be characterized by diverging cognitive-affec- associated with high levels of neuroticism and a propensity tive processes within the work context which may partly for feelings of guilt (Benning et al., 2003; Gudjonsson & explain the differential results reported in earlier studies (see Roberts, 1983). Blickle & Schütte, 2017; Schütte et al., 2018). Further, this In their triarchic model of psychopathy, Patrick et al. (2009) research contributes to the emotion-centred model of volun- state that both primary and secondary psychopathy are com- tary work behaviour (Spector & Fox, 2002) as we (a) apply it to a posed of a combination of three different phenotypic features: specific personality trait and test if the presumed mechanisms disinhibition, boldness, and meanness (see also differential- hold up and (b) integrate the cognitive appraisal forms of configuration-model; Lilienfeld et al., 2015). The authors view challenge, hindrance and threat which to our knowledge has these constructs to be pivotal to understand psychopathy in its not been done previously. various manifestations, namely primary and secondary, criminal On the upcoming pages, we introduce our key constructs, and noncriminal. The feature disinhibition refers to a propen- beginning with psychopathy and CWB. Following this, we sity towards impulse control problems, such as deficient beha- implement our presumed mediator variables and outline the vioural restraint. Boldness describes the capacity to remain hypothesized process linking secondary psychopathy with calm and focused in high-pressure situations, the ability to deviant workplace behaviour. recover quickly from stressful events (resilience) as well as high levels of social efficacy. Meanness refers to a constellation of various attributes