The Dark Triad’s Influence on Whistleblowing
Yoeri R. C. Pegel
University of Amsterdam
ABSTRACT. Unethical leadership behavior has become an increasingly important issue in research, with good reasoning. There are many manners in which to study such behavior and the repercussions of the behavior on the organization and its stakeholders. We attempt to state whether the Dark Triad of personality (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy) characteristics in Dutch employees influences whether they report unethical leadership behavior, referred to in our study as whistleblowing. We also hypothesize that there is a difference in the influence that Dark Triad personality characteristics have on whistleblowing, based upon the notion whether the employee profits from the unethical behavior. In order to draw conclusions regarding the hypotheses, we conduct a vignette study with 94 respondents with varying job descriptions from companies located in the Netherlands. The moderating effect of Dark Triad of personality characteristics on the relationship between whether an employee profits and their likelihood to blow the whistle is confirmed. There are no significant relationships between the Dark Triad constructs and whistleblowing, and whether an employee profits and whistleblowing. Several practical implications and suggestions for future research are mentioned.
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Yoeri Pegel, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Introduction
The images of corporations are damaged or altered in undesired ways, as billions of dollars are spent yearly due to the effects of organizational wrongdoings (Bass, Barnett & Brown, 1999). Unethical leadership behavior has been an important issue in business research in recent years. Enron filing for bankruptcy in November 2001 led the way for a wave of business ethics issues. Enron’s collapse occurred largely due to the unethical practices of its leadership at that moment. Many other corporate scandals followed soon thereafter. Corporate scandals surrounded Tyco, AOL Time Warner, and
Hewlett-Packard, amongst many others. Unethical behavior, as is displayed in these examples, is a broad term. Brown and Mitchell connect unethical behavior with workplace deviance, which includes behavior detrimental to the organization such as: aggression, counterproductive work behavior, social
undermining, and retaliation (2010). Therefore workplace deviance “violates significant organizational norms and harms organizations and its members” (Brown & Mitchell, 2010, p. 587). The case of Volkswagen portrays the consequences that unethical leadership behavior can have on a corporation and its stakeholders. Employees at Volkswagen intentionally altered diesel engines to falsify emission reports, commonly known as the “diesel dupe” in 2015. The software that was installed to alter the emission reports were fitted in 11 million vehicles worldwide, resulting in emissions that were forty times higher than the limit which is allowed in the United States of America. Volkswagen’s recalling of millions of vehicles has forced them to set apart 6.7 billion dollars, with a possible maximum fine from the Environmental Protection Agency being 18 billion dollars. This has resulted in Volkswagen posting its first fiscal loss in fifteen years, at 2.5 billion dollars. Volkswagen is unable to estimate the possible costs of lawsuits from consumers and shareholders. Such leadership wrongdoing is detrimental to all
stakeholders of the corporation.
The implications of unethical leadership behavior are of increasing importance to business research. Therefore the reasoning behind the unprecedented wave of corporate scandals and unethical behavior needs to be thoroughly researched. Ethical leadership has seen increased attention in research during recent times, as many perspectives have been studied extensively. Regardless, many perspectives of unethical leadership in organizations have not been paid equal attention. In order to contribute to the existing literature, the aim of this study is to find a connection between personality characteristics in employees and the extent to which they report unethical leadership.
One of the personality characteristics which was significantly related to unethical behavior in a study conducted by Hegarty was Machiavellianism (1978). Machiavellianism, a manipulative personality, is also known as one of three socially aversive personalities known as the ‘Dark Triad of personality’
(Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The Dark Triad also includes self-centered personalities narcissism and psychopathy as socially aversive personalities, all of which have been extensively empirically researched. All three Dark Triad constructs are related to unethical behavior, and have been closely related to lesser tendencies to feel emotions such as guilt, shame, and the ability to emphasize (Belschak, 2015; Brown & Mitchell, 2010; Strelan). The destructive nature of the Dark Triad makes it assumable that followers who exhibit such behavior would respond differently to unethical behavior. The Dark Triad’s effects on organizational behavior have been extensively researched, but its connection to responding to unethical leadership behavior is still largely unknown.
The inclusion of the Dark Triad in the reporting of unethical leadership behavior by followers leads to the following research question:
1. To what extent do the personality traits from the Dark Triad in employees influence whether the employee reports unethical leadership behavior?
In order to account for differences amongst Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy, the Dark Triad’s personality characteristics will be researched individually. Vernon states that there are significant correlations and low to moderate correlations between the personalities (2008). Therefore, all three will be researched. This leads to three sub-questions regarding the personalities. A common personality characteristic that is found in the Dark Triad is self-interest. Narcissistic individuals are self-interested (House & Howell, 1992). Machiavellians follow leadership whenever it benefits themselves (2015). Psychopathy is related to selfishness (Jacobwitz & Egan, 2006). Due to the selfish nature of the Dark Triad, we will attempt to define whether the advantages that the employee experiences from unethical leadership behavior alters whether the employee reports the behavior.
With regard to the large amount of ways in which an employee can respond to unethical leadership behavior, we choose to define the employee’s response as whistleblowing. An employee complaint regarding illegal, unethical, harmful or inappropriate behavior by an employer is
characterized as a whistleblowing activity, as explained by Berkowitz (2011). Miceli and Near state that wrongdoings in organizations can be prevented by whistleblowing (2005). We add to the existing literature by studying whether employees blow the whistle and if this depends on whether the
employee profits from the behavior. We will also study how Dark Triad personality characteristics in the employee affects this relationship.
Whistleblowing: Reporting Unethical Leadership Behavior
An employee complaint regarding illegal, unethical, harmful or inappropriate behavior by an employer is characterized as a whistleblowing activity, as explained by Berkowitz (2011). Near and Miceli define whistleblowing as “the disclosure by organizational members (former or current) of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or organizations that may be able to effect action” (1985, p. 4). Whistleblowing is an important mechanism through which transparency and accountability can be increased (Apaza, 2011). Whistleblowers, who are insiders within
organizations, are able to gain valuable information which is unable to be gained by the public through oversight systems (Apaza, 2011). Mesmer-Magnus states that reports of unethical actions are more frequently reported by actors close to the organization than by external auditing agencies (2005). Whistleblowers, as Miceli and Near point out, often have the option to report unethical behavior to internal and external reporting channels (1992, 2002). However, almost all whistleblowers attempt to report such actions internally before choosing for external reporting channels. Those who report the unethical actions often face retaliation by the organization. Although improved organizational transparency is desired, whistleblowing individuals are often treated unfairly by others within the organization (Sumanth, 2011). Past research shows that challenging and upsetting the status quo is a result of whistleblowing, which leads to the act of whistleblowing to be frowned upon according to Sumanth. In his study, Sumanth states that instead of receiving praise for reporting unethical behavior within organizations, employees receive backlash for whistleblowing. This comes in the form of less-desirable status, decreased influence and rewards, and the loss of employment. The demand for ethical behavior within organizations has therefore become more apparent (Sumanth, 2011).
Cassimatis states that the average whistleblower in the Australian public sector is likely to be an ordinary employee who wants to report unethical organizational behavior after being personally victimized by the behavior (2013). The conclusion that the average employee who reports the unethical behavior is first confronted and personally victimized by the behavior has implications for our study. We hypothesize that whether employees profit from the behavior will influence whether they will report the unethical leadership behavior. More specifically, profiting from the behavior, will lead to employees being less likely to report the behavior, as whistleblowing would be costly for those employees.
According to Cho, multiple factors influence the act of whistleblowing, such as a proactive personality, and leverage that the individual has in the specific situation (2015). Considering the situational setup of this study, leverage is an important aspect, as the situations that are studied either have the employee profiting from the unethical leadership behavior or not profiting from the behavior. More leverage
increases the likelihood that an individual blows the whistle, meaning that a non-profiting employee will more likely blow the whistle. An employee who profits from the unethical behavior might have less leverage when attempting to report the behavior to a different party, especially if they have had prior knowledge of the behavior happening. Perceived personal costs decrease whistleblowing intention (Cho, 2015). This would also indicate that a profiting employee would be less likely to blow the whistle, as they would lose whatever they receive from the unethical behavior. These findings result in the hypothesis regarding whistleblowing as a response to unethical leadership behavior.
1. Employees who do not profit from unethical leadership behavior are more likely to report the behavior.
Jones stated that moral intensity consisted of an individuals’ moral philosophy, values, and attitude towards ethical dilemmas (1991). Moral intensity was generally correlated to whistleblowing intention. However, only potential harm was positively correlated with whistleblowing intention. Potential harm was one of the measurements through which moral intensity was studied by Cheng, with social pressure being the other (2014). Potential harm, which shows how much the unethical behavior affects others, triggers the intention to blow the whistle. These findings impact the perspective on the relationship between whistleblowing intentions and the Dark Triad. Moral intention consists of factors such as morality and attitude towards ethical dilemmas (Jones, 1991). Miceli et al. also found that moral standards and judgment are individual factors that influence whistleblowing intention (1991). Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy are all commonly known for unethical and non-moral behavior. Therefore the lack of ethical and moral behavior in individuals who are highly characterized by the Dark Triad are likely to have a lesser tendency to blow the whistle.
The Dark Triad of Personality: Machiavellianism and Unethical Behavior
Vernon states that Machiavellianism consists of insincerity, callousness and cold and manipulative behavior (2008). Machiavellian individuals are likely to deceive and manipulate to gain self-benefit, while narcissistic individuals tend to behave cruelly towards others (Jacobwitz & Egan, 2006). Wilson, Near & Miller note that Machiavellianism is “a strategy of social conduct that involves manipulating others for personal gain, often against the other’s self-interest” (1996, p. 295). Machiavellians, like psychopathic individuals, are less effected by negative feelings about their own unethical actions (Belschak, 2015). This could imply condoning or endorsing unethical leadership behavior. This, because they combine manipulation and a charming personality with an emotionally detached affective style.
Belschak also states that Machiavellian individuals follow leaders as long as it is in their own best interest to do so (2015). This, along with Machiavellianism is often characterized by personal gain, leads to the following hypothesis:
2. Machiavellian individuals are less likely to report unethical leadership behavior.
The self-centered nature of Machiavellians leads us to assume that high Machiavellian individuals will refrain from reporting unethical leadership behavior when the individual benefits from the behavior. Machiavellians, according to Sims, are recognized by their highly self-interested perspective (2010). With a high level of self-interest, it is fair to assume that levels of Machiavellianism would influence whether an individual reports unethical behavior. Machiavellians would refrain from whistleblowing, as such behavior could result in retaliation and because of the potential costs of whistleblowing. We expect that higher levels of Machiavellian characteristics in Dutch employees will result in a lower tendency to report unethical leadership behavior compared to low levels of Machiavellian characteristics.
Singhapakdi and Vitell studied individuals working in marketing (1990, 1991). They suggested that those individuals who showed high Machiavellian tendencies were more likely to perceive ethical problems as being a less serious matter than less Machiavellian individuals. In another study, focusing on consumers, Vitell stated that low Machiavellian individuals were more ethical (2003).
Machiavellianism, and its relationship with ethical behavior, has been a widely debated topic in research. Hunt and Vitell showed its association with unethical leadership styles (2006). Dahling et al. discussed morality, a personality characteristic that is often mentioned in line with trustworthiness, integrity, openness, concern for others and following ethical rules. They concluded that these behaviors are contradictory to high Machiavellian individuals (2009). This could further confirm the notion that unethical behavior by employees, not just leaders, is associated with Machiavellianism. Hunt and Vitell also mentioned that high Machiavellian individuals are less likely to perceive unethical behavior in a negative manner (2006). O’Fallon and Butterfield confirm the negative relationship with ethical decision making (2005). Dozier and Miceli view whistleblowing, our measurement for reporting unethical leadership behavior, as prosocial behavior (1985). Staub identified Machiavellianism as a determining characteristic against prosocial behavior (1974). Jones and Paulhus also state that Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy are socially aversive traits (2014). We expect, in line with these findings, that high levels of Machiavellian characteristics in Dutch employees will result in a lower tendency to report unethical leadership behavior compared to low levels of Machiavellian characteristics. Due to the selfish nature of Machiavellianism, we expect that a Machiavellian employee will be less likely to blow
the whistle, even if the employee does not profit from the unethical leadership behavior. Sumanth concluded that in his study, the negative association between Machiavellianism and whistleblowing was not confirmed (2011). Sumanth anticipated in his hypothesis that the negative association would become apparent after performing the study. However, his findings were concluded from a sample in Turkey, stating that this findings were therefore skewed towards a Muslim culture, although Turkey is not politically seen as a Muslim state. The findings from earlier research regarding Machiavellianism were largely conducted in Western culture, cultural differences likely influence the relationship between Machiavellianism and whistleblowing. Therefore the findings of Sumanth do not alter the hypotheses regarding Machiavellianism.
The Dark Triad of Personality: Narcissism and Unethical Behavior
House and Howell (1992) portrayed that narcissism in individuals creates a sense of self-interest. However, these individuals are capable of being charming, manipulative and have a tendency to be cruel. Another aspect of narcissism is the lack of self-doubt. As Brown and Mitchell state, empathy is positively related to prosocial behavior, while being negatively related to destructive and unethical behavior (2010). Watson and Morris noted that narcissistic personalities are associated with diminished empathic capacity (1991). This implies that narcissistic individuals are less likely to have the empathic capacity to portray prosocial behavior and act in an ethical manner. Guilt, according to Brown and Mitchell, is a self-focused emotion which focuses on the harm and suffering that others experience as a consequence of the person’s actions. Strelan found the relationship between narcissism and guilt, as this is negatively related (2007). Narcissistic individuals are less likely to experience guilt, and narcissism is positively related to self-forgiveness. This implies that narcissistic individuals would tend to forgive themselves for allowing unethical behavior to occur in the organization, without feeling guilt for the consequences to others. Whistleblowing, the manner in which reporting unethical leadership behavior is measured in this study, is defined as prosocial behavior (Dozier & Miceli, 1985). As stated earlier,
narcissistic individuals are less likely to have the empathic capabilities to act pro-socially and ethical. Jones and Paulhus confirm this, stating that narcissism, along with the other Dark Triad traits, are defined as socially aversive traits (2014). The socially aversive nature of narcissism makes it less likely that an employee rated as highly narcissistic would portray prosocial behavior, such as whistleblowing, as often as less narcissistic employees. This leads to the first hypotheses regarding narcissism:
However, entitled narcissists are less likely to forgive others, as stated by Strelan and Exline et al. (2004, 2007). Therefore whether the employee profits from unethical leadership behavior could alter the effect that narcissism has on the likeliness that the employee would report the behavior. Burton found that subordinates who are experiencing abusive leadership behavior, are more likely to act aggressively towards the organization and towards the supervisors (2011). They also note that highly narcissistic individuals are more likely to respond to abusive leadership behavior with interpersonal aggression.
In addition, we demonstrated that a person’s narcissism is an important moderator between perceptions of abusive supervision and their own aggression, especially when considering interactional justice. In addition, we demonstrated that a person’s narcissism is an important moderator between perceptions of abusive supervision and their own aggression, especially when considering interactional justice. In addition, we demonstrated that a person’s narcissism is an important moderator between perceptions of abusive supervision and their own aggression, especially when considering interactional justice.
Wang concluded from his study of 403 full-time employees in China, that narcissism moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and deviance toward the supervisor (2014). Narcissistic employees are more likely to react aggressively to abusive supervision compared to less-narcissistic employees. Although Wang’s study was conducted in China, which makes its results harder to generalize to Western culture, there is importance in the study. He conducted the study at different types of companies, with the respondents varying in age, gender and job description within the organization.
Highly narcissistic individuals find it difficult to forgive mistreatment or negative feedback from others, which would increase the likelihood that a narcissist would retaliate against a supervisor (Exline et al., 2004). Workplace deviance, which includes counterproductive work behavior such as abusive supervision, is linked to unethical behavior (Brown and Mitchell, 2010). Therefore we can assume that highly narcissistic employees are likely to respond to unethical leadership behavior when the employee feels that they are being mistreated. The aggressive nature of narcissism and the tendency of narcissistic individuals to behave cruelly to others will probably affect whistleblowing depending on whether the employee profits from unethical leadership behavior (Jacobwitz & Egan, 2006). Research shows that narcissistic individuals often respond to mistreatment with retaliation to their supervisors. Therefore we expect that instead of reporting unethical behavior to an independent party, narcissistic individuals might respond aggressively directly to the supervisor. If narcissism does not decrease the tendency to
blow the whistle in employees, their tendency to respond aggressively directly to the supervisor might be a reason why they do not blow the whistle.
The Dark Triad of personality: Psychopathy and Unethical Behavior
Paulhus and Williams note that of all three personalities in the Dark Triad, psychopathy is known to be the most destructive personality (2002). Psychopathy consists of three facets. An arrogant and deceitful social style, a deficient affective experience, and an impulsive and irresponsible behavioral style (Cooke and Michie, 2001). Multiple studies have reported that primary psychopathy is related to empathic deficiencies. According to Lyons (2015), the lack of empathy could stop psychopathic individuals from experiencing moral emotions. This could provide primary psychopaths with the capacity to exploit others without feeling shame or guilt. Therefore, the assumption can be made that psychopathic individuals would endorse unethical behavior, especially when they benefit from the behavior. Perkel states that ethically insufficient leadership generally disregards the needs of others, while they are prepared to cheat and disregard the welfare of others (2005). Boddy states that these unethical personality traits are commonly associated with psychopathy (2010).
Psychopaths, commonly known for their impulsive criminal behavior, are highly unlikely to function in society. Literature shows that there is a type of psychopath who is not prone to such behavior and can function successfully within society, these are often referred to as Corporate
Psychopaths (Boddy, 2010). However, literature also shows that Corporate Psychopaths are destructive to organizations and employees (Boddy, 2010). Furthermore, Corporate Psychopathy is negatively and significantly associated with corporate social responsibility within organizations, which builds on the notion that psychopathy is consistent of unsocial behavior (Boddy, 2010). Considering that
whistleblowing is considered pro-social behavior, psychopaths will be less likely to blow the whistle.
3. Psychopathic individuals are less likely to report unethical leadership behavior.
Jacobwitz and Egan add to the characteristics, stating that selfishness, callousness, charm, and remorselessness are also applicable to psychopathy (2006). Corporate Psychopathy is led by a desire to gain power, wealth and prestige (Hercz, 2001; Babiak and Hare, 2006). Clarke states that these
psychopathic individuals are interested in self-gratification, and do not care about the success of the organization or other employees (2007). Clarke also mentions that Corporate Psychopaths aim to get high positions within organizations due to the power and financial rewards of those positions (2007). The selfish nature of psychopathy leads to the third hypothesis regarding psychopathy, as we expect
that whether a psychopathic employee profits from unethical leadership behavior will influence
whether they blow the whistle. In terms of poor leadership, ethically bad leaders are said to be callously disregarding of the needs and wishes of other people, further, they are reported to be prepared to cheat, lie and bully and to disregard or cause harm to the welfare of others (Perkel, 2005). All these traits are commonly associated with psychopaths in the literature and the study of psychopaths within organizations is therefore called for.
Conceptual model
Figure 2 shows the conceptual model. This consists of the independent variable, whether the employee profits or does not profit from the unethical leadership behavior. The moderator variable is the Dark Triad of personality characteristics which are evident in the employee. The dependent variable is whether the employee reports the unethical leadership behavior, otherwise defined as whether they blow the whistle.
Research method
Sample
In order to test the previously mentioned hypotheses regarding the Dark Triad and whistleblowing within Dutch organizations, a vignette study will be conducted. The sample consists of 94 Dutch respondents, all of whom will have filled out the vignette study anonymously. The vignette study was administered in English. The sample, although limited in its size, ensures that conclusions can be derived from the gathered data. All respondents are Dutch employees at organizations based in the
Netherlands, with the employees varying in age and gender. Full-time, part-time, probationary, and temporary employees, who had varying employee durations, all filled out the survey.
The vignette survey consists of 26 questions that show whether an individual respondent has Dark Triad characteristics. These questions are where the moderating variable, Dark Triad
characteristics, are measured. The respondents will also fill out two randomly assigned scenario’s, where the respondent has to describe how they would handle hypothetic scenario’s where they are confronted with unethical leadership behavior. There are eight scenario’s, half of which include a situation where the employee profits from the unethical leadership behavior and half where the employee does not profit from the behavior. The randomly assigned scenario’s measure the
respondents whistleblowing tendencies, which is the dependent variable in our conceptual model. The respondents will fill out the seven questions regarding whistleblowing with the use of a seven point Likert-scale. In order to ensure that the respondents understand the scenario’s and which
organizational members profit from the unethical behavior in the scenario’s, a control question will be added. Scenario’s filled out with an incorrect answer for the control question will not be a part of the sample. To conclude the survey, respondents will fill out whether they are currently employed, the terms of their employment, duration of their employment, age group, and gender. Miceli and Near suggested that age might be a significant predictor for whistleblowing tendencies (1992). However, these findings were not confirmed by the study of Sims and Keenan (1998). Even though age was non-significant in their study, age and organizational tenure will be tested as possible factors that influence whistleblowing tendencies.
There are also cultural differences that influence whistleblowing. Cultures that score low in the individualism dimension are defined as collective. Organizations which are located in a collective culture show a higher organizational tendency to blow the whistle (Sims & Keenan, 1999). Collective cultures encourage supporting individuals as part of a larger group, therefore encouraging prosocial behavior
such as whistleblowing, which protects the group (Sims & Keenan, 1999). Considering that our study is conducted in the Netherlands, and is therefore Western culture oriented, the findings of this study might be more applicable to an individualized culture. All respondents will therefore be Dutch, to ensure that cultural differences do not interfere with the results. The respondents need to be employees in organizations, as they need to be able to understand and respond realistically how they would handle the hypothetical situations in the survey. The quantitative data derived from the surveys will allow us to find any possible significant relationships between the variables.
Measures
Employee Profits from the unethical behavior. The respondents in this study all had to answer questions regarding two randomly assigned scenario’s consisting of hypothetical situations. The binary data regarding the independent variable Employee Profits is derived from the randomly assigned scenario’s. Scenario’s 1-4 indicate a hypothetical situation where the employee profits from the unethical
leadership behavior (Value = 1), scenario’s 5-8 indicate a situation where the employee does not profit from the behavior (Value = 0).
Dark Triad of personality characteristics. Levels of Dark Triad characteristics in respondents were measured with 26 items on a seven point Likert-scale (15 = Strongly Disagree; 21 = Strongly Agree). The 26 items were derived from the Dark Triad measurement which was developed by Paulhus and Jones (2011, 2014). The 26 items together average a composite score for our measurement of Dark Triad characteristics (M = 17.55, SD = 0.58759). Paulhus and Williams stated that the related constructs Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy are overlapping but have distinctions amongst them. Figure 2, as shown in the study by Boddy, illustrates the overlap that Paulhus and Williams concluded (2010). The exact extent of the overlap amongst the Dark Triad constructs is unknown. In order to account for overlap and differences amongst the Dark Triad characteristics, the effects of all three constructs are also measured individually. Nine items respectively for Machiavellianism and Narcissism, and eight items for Psychopathy were used.
Figure 2. Dark Triad of Personality
Machiavellianism. Due to the overlapping and differences amongst the Dark Triad constructs, the effects of all three constructs are also measured separately on a seven-point Likert-scale (15 = Strongly Disagree; 21 = Strongly Agree). Nine items, derived from the items used to measure Dark Triad characteristics, were used to measure Machiavellianism in respondents (M = 17.83, SD =17.8522).
Narcissism. With the overlap and differences amongst the Dark Triad constructs, the effects of narcissism in respondents are also measured separately (15 = Strongly Disagree; 21 = Strongly Agree). Nine items, derived from the items used to measure Dark Triad characteristics, were used to measure Narcissism in respondents (M = 17.54, SD = 17.5496).
Psychopathy. The effects of psychopathy in respondents are also measured separately (15 = Strongly Disagree; 21 = Strongly Agree). Eight items, derived from the items used to measure Dark Triad characteristics, were used to measure Psychopathy in respondents (M =17.22, SD = 17.2433).
Whistleblowing. Whether respondents are likely to blow the whistle is measured with data derived from seven questions on a seven point Likert-scale (1 = Strongly Disagree; 7 = Strongly Agree). Questions one through four regard external manners of whistleblowing, while questions five through seven regard internal manners of whistleblowing (M = 3.6793, SD = 0.81318).
Age. In accordance with the study of Miceli and Near, age will be tested if it’s a significant predictor for whistleblowing tendencies (1992). Age was measured in a scale where the respondents had to fill out their age category (M = 3.713, SD = 2.28).
Results Descriptive statistics N Mean Std. Deviation Age 94 3.713 2.2842 Gender 94 1.426 .4971 DARKTRIAD 92 17.5585 .58759 MACH 94 17.8522 .97539 NAR 93 17.5496 .41811 PSYCH 93 17.2433 .66179 WB 94 3.6793 .81318 Valid N (listwise) 92
Table 1. Descriptive statistics
Correlations
WB
MCEMP Pearson Correlation -.134
Sig. (2-tailed) .199
N 94
MCEMPDARKTRIAD Pearson Correlation -.232*
Sig. (2-tailed) .026
N 92
MCEMPMACH Pearson Correlation
-.179
Sig. (2-tailed) .084
N 94
MCEMPNAR Pearson Correlation
-.175
Sig. (2-tailed) .094
N 93
MCEMPPSYCH Pearson Correlation -.203
Sig. (2-tailed) .052
N 93
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Respondents who stated that they are unemployed were deleted from the sample, as they did not meet the criteria for our study. However, the assumption was made that unemployed respondents who were in the age category fifty years or older are retired employees. The three respondents who were a part of that category were therefore kept in the sample. One respondent did not fill out the duration of their employment, yet the survey did state that the respondent was employed. The assumption was made that this respondent just started working at their organization. Of 265 initial respondents, 94 survey’s met the criteria for our study.
Initially, the means and standard deviations of all variables were calculated, which are shown in table 1. These results showed that the average respondent was likely to be in the between the ages of 26 and 35 (mean = 3.713, SD = 2.2842) and there were more female respondents than male respondents (mean = 1.426, SD = 0.4971). The average respondents’ age can be explained by the fact that the data collection was done by University of Amsterdam students. By calculating Cronbach’s alpha, the internal reliability of the measurements of the variables in our model was determined. Cronbach’s alpha, as well as the significance of the relationships are shown in table 2. Whistleblowing showed to be reliable (α = 0.786). The Dark Triad of personality as a whole, consisting of 26 total items, was found to be highly reliable (α = 0.842). Cronbach’s alphas for the nine Machiavellian and nine narcissism items were 0.851 and 0.700, respectively. The eight items used to measure psychopathy were found to be less reliable (α = 0.580), deleting item number 23 increased Cronbach’s alpha to 0.632. The deleting of any additional items would not have increased Cronbach’s alpha by a considerable amount, leading us to only delete one item. Therefore the construct psychopathy was measured with the seven remaining items. The item that was deleted, however, was not deleted from the measurement of the Dark Triad. This, because deleting that specific item would have decreased the Cronbach’s alpha from 0.842 to 0.839.
Regression analysis shows that the moderating effect of the Dark Triad of personality on the relationship between whether an employee profits and whether the employee blows the whistle is evident. Dark Triad characteristics significantly negatively moderate the relationship (p < 0.05, SE = 0.287). This was accompanied by a Pearson correlation of -0.232. The direct effect of whether an employee profits on whistleblowing was found to be nonsignificant (p > 0.05, Pearson correlation = -0.134, SE = 0.169). Therefore Hypothesis 1 is not confirmed. The moderating effect of the individual constructs of the Dark Triad was found to be non-significant. Machiavellianism (p > 0.05, Pearson correlation = 0.179, SE = 0.171), narcissism (p>0.05, 0.175, SE = 0.434), and psychopathy (p>0.05, -0.203, SE = 0.251) were not significant moderators. Therefore Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 are not confirmed. The low Pearson correlations showed relatively weak relationships. The direct effect of the Dark Triad in
its entirety on whistleblowing, although non-significant, showed indications of a strong relationship (p > 0.05, Pearson correlation = -0.43, SE = 0.146). Age was not found to be a significant predictor of
whistleblowing tendencies (Sims & Keenan, 1998). We also did not find a significant relationship between age of the respondents and whistleblowing (p = 0.239, SE = 0.037).
Discussion
The effect that the Dark Triad has on the relationship between whether an employee profits from unethical leadership behavior and whistleblowing has become evident. Characteristics of the Dark Triad of personality in employees will lower the likelihood that employee blows the whistle, regardless of whether the employee profits from the unethical behavior. Our expectations that the individual constructs of the Dark Triad would significantly lower the likelihood that employees blow the whistle was not confirmed. All three constructs showed a non-significant negative effect. Although
Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy did lower the chance that an employee blows the whistle, these effects were not found to be significant. The expectation that a profiting employee would be less likely to blow the whistle was also not confirmed. Profiting employees are less likely to blow the whistle, but this relationship was not significant.
Limitations
There are multiple limitations to this study. Due to the sample consisting only of Dutch employees, the applicability of the results that were derived from the sample to other cultures is difficult. Culture differences influence whistleblowing, as individualized cultures are less likely to show the tendency to blow the whistle (Sims & Keenan, 1999). This implies that the results from this study are difficult to apply to other cultures, mainly less individualized cultures.
The sample is limited to only 94 respondents, which makes the data less generalizable to the entire Dutch population. This was largely a result of incorrectly answered control questions, which made the data from those respondents not usable for our study. Furthermore, as our study was being
conducted amongst Dutch employees, the individuals needed to be employed at a company located in the Netherlands. Multiple respondents were therefore removed from the sample because they were not currently employed. The survey was conducted in English, leading to some respondents being unable to answer the questions. This could imply that there were respondents who did not fully comprehend the questions or the scenario’s, leading to incorrect data. This could also indicate the high number of incorrectly answered control questions.
The respondents were all gathered by students from the University of Amsterdam. This could indicate a skewed dataset that focuses mainly on the region of Amsterdam and could have skewed data with regards to age.
Several questions from the survey regarding narcissism and psychopathy were included in the survey in a reverse coding compared to the other questions. The reverse coding was evident in five out of 25 questions. The questions, which were included in the data gathering and analysis, could have altered the answering process of respondents, and therefore altered whether someone would be defined as having high narcissistic or psychopathic traits.
The data collection method consisted partially of a scenario design. This required respondents to answer to the scenario related questions with hypothetical reactions to hypothetical situations. This could lead to respondents reacting to the hypothetical situations in an unlikely manner, considering that they would potentially take the consequences of whistleblowing less into consideration.
Future research and practical implications
In order to possible confirm the earlier stated hypotheses, the study needs to be repeated with a larger sample size. If repeated, all questions must be coded identically, in order to ensure consistent answers from the respondents. The generalizability to other cultures, which is limited, could be increased by performing a similar study in other countries in Europe and North America. This could either confirm or discredit the findings from our study. Another manner in which relevant data could be gathered is by looking specifically at differences between internal and external whistleblowing. Studying whether employees with Dark Triad characteristics respond to mistreatment with retaliation to their supervisors could possibly explain why the Dark Triad constructs did not result in lower tendencies to blow the whistle. Research shows that narcissistic individuals are likely to respond with retaliation to their supervisors. Whether this is also evident for Machiavellianism and psychopathy would possibly explain why highly Machiavellian, narcissistic, and psychopathic employees would not be less likely to blow the whistle.
Employees who are characterized by the Dark Triad are less likely to blow the whistle. Organizations which deem ethicality an important issue could therefore aim to develop methods through which they can determine levels of Dark Triad characteristics in current and potential
employees, in order to possibly increase the levels of whistleblowing. However, more research regarding the Dark Triad of personality and whistleblowing needs to be conducted in order to draw conclusions which can be used for practical implications.
References
Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. Regan Books/Harper Collins Publishers.
Bass, K., Barnett, T., & Brown, G. (1999). Individual difference variables, ethical judgments, and ethical behavioral intentions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(02), 183-205.
Belschak, F. D., Den Hartog, D. N., & Kalshoven, K. (2015). Leading machiavellians how to translate machiavellians’ selfishness into pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1934-1956.
Berkowitz, A. D., Tusk, C. M., Downes, J. I., & Caroline, D. S. (2011). Whistleblowing. Employee Relations Law Journal, 36(4), 15-32.
Boddy, C. R. (2010). Corporate psychopaths and organizational type. Journal of Public Affairs, 10(4), 300-312.
Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(04), 583-616.
Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2011). Aggressive reactions to abusive supervision: The role of interactional justice and narcissism. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 52(4), 389-398.
Chen, C. P., & Lai, C. T. (2014). To blow or not to blow the whistle: the effects of potential harm, social pressure
and organisational commitment on whistleblowing intention and behaviour. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 23(3), 327-342.
Cho, Y. J., & Song, H. J. (2015). Determinants of Whistleblowing Within Government Agencies. Public
Personnel Management, 44(4), 450-472.
Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy: towards a hierarchical model. Psychological assessment, 13(2), 171.
Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., Campbell, W. K., & Finkel, E. J. (2004). Too proud to let go: narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to forgiveness. Journal of personality and social
Hegarty, W. H., & Sims, H. P. (1978). Some determinants of unethical decision behavior: An experiment. journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 451.
Hercz, R. (2001). Psychopaths among us. Saturday Night Magazine, 23-29.
Hotten, R. (n.d.). Volkswagen: The scandal explained. Retrieved June 13, 2016, from http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 81-108.
Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(2), 331-339.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28-41.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Whistleblowing in organizations: An examination of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation. Journal of Business
Ethics, 62(3), 277-297.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1992). Blowing the whistle: The organizational and legal implications for companies and employees. Lexington Books.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (2002). What makes whistle-blowers effective? Three field studies. Human Relations, 55(4), 455-479.
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.
Paulhus, D. L., & Jones, D. N. (2011). Introducing a short measure of the Dark Triad. Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio.
Perkel, S. E. (2005). Book review: Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Consulting to management, 16, 59-61.
Sims, R. L., & Keenan, J. P. (1998). Predictors of external whistleblowing: Organizational and intrapersonal variables. Journal of Business Ethics,17(4), 411-421.
Sims, R. L., & Keenan, J. P. (1999). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Managers' Whistleblowing Tendencies*. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 12(2), 137-151.
Strelan, P. (2007). Who forgives others, themselves, and situations? The roles of narcissism, guilt, self-esteem, and agreeableness. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(2), 259-269.
Toker Gokce, A. (2015). Relating teachers' whistleblowing tendency and personal features:
Machiavellianism, religiosity, and utilitarianism. Issues in Educational Research, 25(4), 517-534. Vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Vickers, L. C., & Harris, J. A. (2008). A behavioral genetic investigation of
the Dark Triad and the Big 5. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(2), 445-452.
Watson, P. J., & Morris, R. J. (1991). Narcissism, empathy and social desirability. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(6), 575-579.
Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: a synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological bulletin, 119(2), 285.
