Discovering Why Ruthless Employees Thrive in Modern Workplaces
A groundbreaking study from the University of British Columbia's Sauder School of Business sheds light on a perplexing workplace phenomenon: why employees exhibiting ruthless or manipulative behaviors often climb the career ladder. Published in the Journal of Managerial Psychology, the research challenges conventional wisdom by revealing that some managers deliberately favor subordinates with dark personality traits—such as Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy—because they align with the managers' own career ambitions. These traits, part of what psychologists term the 'Dark Triad,' include a willingness to manipulate others, lack of empathy, and self-serving actions without remorse.
Conducted by Eric Mercadante from New York University, alongside UBC researchers Karl Aquino, Steven Heine, and Daniel Skarlicki, the study surveyed over 1,200 managers and used controlled experiments with fictional candidates. The results indicate that when managers prioritize 'agentic goals'—personal advancement over team harmony—they view these ruthless individuals as assets. This preference is particularly pronounced among 'dominance-oriented' leaders who seek to offload unpopular tasks like enforcing layoffs or disciplining staff.
In Canadian workplaces, including universities and colleges, this dynamic raises critical questions about hiring, promotion, and long-term organizational health. As higher education institutions face increasing pressures from funding cuts and administrative demands, understanding these patterns could prevent toxic cultures from taking root.
Understanding Dark Personality Traits in Professional Contexts
Dark personality traits refer to a cluster of antisocial characteristics that hinder healthy interpersonal relationships. The Dark Triad—Machiavellianism (cunning manipulation for personal gain), narcissism (grandiose sense of entitlement), and psychopathy (callousness and impulsivity)—is the most studied framework. These traits exist on a spectrum; subclinical levels are common, affecting 1-4% of the general population at higher intensities, but prevalence rises among executives, with studies estimating up to 12 times the rate in senior leaders compared to average workers.
In academia, where competition for grants, tenure, and leadership roles is fierce, these traits can manifest subtly. A study on university students found elevated Dark Triad scores among business majors, suggesting early selection into high-stakes fields. Canadian universities, like UBC, are not immune; recent surveys indicate that dark traits correlate with burnout and knowledge-hoarding among faculty, undermining collaborative research environments.
Unlike clinical disorders, these traits often masquerade as confidence or decisiveness during short hiring processes, making detection challenging without structured assessments.
The Appeal of Ruthless Subordinates to Ambitious Managers
The UBC study demonstrates that managers driven by agentic motivations—focusing on status and power—rate manipulative candidates higher. In one experiment, identical resumes were paired with scenarios where candidates used self-interested tactics to resolve conflicts; self-serving managers praised these approaches, seeing them as effective for achieving results.
Dominance-oriented managers, who prioritize control, particularly value dark traits for 'dirty work.' These subordinates willingly handle tasks like communicating bad news or cutting budgets, shielding the manager from backlash. Dr. Karl Aquino notes, "Throughout history and in organizations, there are people who have to do dirty, bad things that a lot of people don't want to do, and perhaps dark personalities are better able to do those than those who lack these traits."
In contrast, prestige-oriented managers, balancing agentic and communal goals (team welfare), avoid such hires. This goal alignment explains why ruthless employees rise: they serve as proxies for managers' ambitions.
Methodology: Rigorous Experiments and Real-World Reflections
The research employed multi-study designs for robustness. Study 1 and 2 involved managers evaluating subordinates based on vignettes highlighting dark behaviors. Managers' goal orientations were measured via established scales, revealing positive evaluations linked to agentic priorities.
A key innovation was distinguishing dominance (forceful ascent) from prestige (respect-based rise). Dominance leaders showed stronger preferences, mediated by agentic goals. Controlling for similarity attraction and managers' own traits ensured causality. Real-employee reflections confirmed patterns: self-serving managers favored 'dark' favorites.
Exploratory analyses extended to specific Dark Triad facets, with agentic goals driving preferences across Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism. Full details are available in the published paper.
Short-Term Benefits Versus Long-Term Organizational Costs
Short-term, dark hires deliver: they execute tough decisions, boosting manager optics. However, Aquino warns, "While there are advantages... it's possible that it could be costly in the long run as they may do things that get the organization in trouble. Organizations may regret it, and the people they hire may well stab them in the back."
Meta-analyses link Dark Triad to counterproductive behaviors, reduced performance, and toxicity. In higher ed, this manifests as faculty politics, grant poaching, or bullying juniors, eroding trust essential for research collaboration.
Canadian colleges report rising burnout from such dynamics, with 2025 surveys showing 30% of academics citing toxic leadership.
Photo by Marquise Kamanke on Unsplash
Relevance to Canadian Universities and Colleges
At institutions like UBC, University of Toronto, and community colleges, administrative roles mirror corporate pressures. Hiring deans or chairs often favors 'decisive' candidates, potentially overlooking dark flags. A Western University study found Dark Triad traits higher in student leaders, hinting at pipeline issues.
Tenure processes amplify risks: ruthless academics excel in self-promotion but harm departmental morale. Amid enrollment declines and budget squeezes, colleges must balance short-term efficiency with cultural health.
Read more on UBC Sauder's insights here.
Dark Traits in Academic Leadership: Evidence and Examples
Research shows dark traits prevalent in academia: a 2024 study linked them to burnout via entitlement and manipulation. In Canada, psychopathy rates among professors may mirror executives (4x general), per global estimates.
- Narcissistic chairs prioritize publications over mentoring.
- Machiavellian admins manipulate committees for grants.
- Psychopathic leaders cut programs ruthlessly, ignoring impacts.
Case: Anonymous Canadian uni scandals involved manipulative deans fostering distrust. Prevalence studies on uni students predict future faculty issues.
Strategies for Ethical Hiring in Higher Education
To counter biases:
- Structured Interviews: Use behavioral questions revealing empathy.
- 360 Reviews: Multi-source feedback post-probation.
- Personality Assessments: Valid tools like HEXACO, cautious of faking.
- Cultural Audits: Prioritize communal goals in leader selection.
- Training: Workshops on dominance vs. prestige leadership.
Canadian unis like McGill employ assessments; expand to flag dark risks.
Stakeholder Perspectives: Faculty, Students, and Administrators
Faculty report exhaustion from ruthless colleagues hoarding resources. Students suffer from biased advising. Admins face retention crises. Balanced views: some traits aid bold decisions in crises, but overuse harms.
Experts like Heine emphasize cultural fit over raw ambition.
Future Outlook: Trends in Workplace Psychology Research
Upcoming studies may explore interventions, AI screening for traits. In Canada, post-2026 budgets stress ethical leadership amid AI disruptions. Unis investing in psych safety see 20% higher productivity.
Photo by Ben den Engelsen on Unsplash
Actionable Insights for Canadian Higher Ed Leaders
1. Audit promotions for goal biases.
2. Foster prestige cultures.
3. Monitor 'dirty work' assignments.
4. Promote via team contributions.
5. Use data-driven HR for equity.
This UBC study equips leaders to build healthier campuses, prioritizing sustainable success over ruthless climbs.
