Personality and Work Performance

Who Are You?

The Strategic Imperative of Personality and Authenticity in a Collaborative World

Published: 15 April 2026⏱️ 12 min read

By Nick Keca

1. Introduction

We interact with people constantly: random strangers, family, friends, clients, customers, colleagues, and our bosses. In the majority of those interactions, understanding who we are and who they are can make a real difference to the relationships we develop, how effectively we communicate, and what outcomes we realise. We've all met people we instantly like or dislike; we've all worked with people we get on with or can't get on with, no matter how hard we try. At a time when our success relies on consistent and effective pro-social behaviour, understanding the source of these reactions is the single most important capability for any professional.

The world has changed dramatically in just a few decades. Consider a first job in the 1980s as a mechanical engineer manufacturing precision machinery. Back then, the output of an engineer’s input was primarily theirs alone. Even though they did complex technical work, they operated largely independently. Work-related interactions were limited to immediate line managers or colleagues, and were purely social. Today, work is almost unrecognizable. It is largely knowledge-based, complicated, dynamic, and uncertain. It is fast-moving, poorly specified, and relies on collaboration with stakeholders who may be located anywhere on the planet.

Despite this increased reliance on 'soft skills,' most of us leave education knowing nothing about what it means to be human or the nature of the human condition. We are taught the basic curriculum, but not the psychological mechanisms that determine our success as adults. This lack of awareness has a profound impact on our personal lives and professional careers, leading to poor life choices, relationship failures, and even negative health outcomes. Given the extent of these issues, it is shocking that we enter the world of work without a clear 'manual' for navigating our own and others' personalities. This gap in understanding results in the 'unmasking' of behaviours that are uncharacteristic, counter-productive, and, in some cases, self-destructive.

2. Changing Context and Collaboration

Organisations are facing challenging transformations to their operating environment. The rise of the knowledge economy has increased task uncertainty and complexity, in turn placing greater demands on the team’s cognitive abilities and the frequency of social interactions. Connectivity is increasing, yet global productivity is declining. Data suggests that managers and employees now spend more than 50% of their time in collaborative activities. This 'collaboration curse' creates a context where employees are so busy meeting and communicating that they cannot complete their actual tasks, leading to burnout and stress. It is not that collaboration is inherently bad, but that 'more' does not always equal 'better.' Excessive collaboration depletes resource capacity and increases the risk of conflict and attrition.

The shift toward virtual and distributed teams is another defining feature of the modern landscape. Surveys report that between 60% and 80% of all employees may now be working in distributed virtual teams. While technology allows us to work from anywhere, it also creates significant ambiguity. Members of distributed teams often hold multiple roles, with many workers participating in five or more teams simultaneously. This creates goal conflict, role ambiguity, and 'moral disengagement'—a process where employees reduce their effort because they feel disconnected from the outcome. The Gartner Group found that 50% of virtual teams fail to achieve their goals, and more recent reports suggest this failure rate could be as high as 82%.

Furthermore, management structures have been de-layered, creating flatter, wider hierarchies. While this increases efficiency, it also increases the 'span of control' for leaders, necessitating a greater number of interactions between colleagues. This 'excess management' and the bureaucracy that follows cost the global economy trillions of dollars in lost potential. In such an environment, the 'Social Capital'—the value of our interconnectedness—is more important than financial capital. Success in this new world depends entirely on our ability to maintain effective social interactions under extreme pressure. We must recognise that the behaviours we see in these environments are often a reflection of the stressors rather than the individual's core personality.

3. Personality

Personality is characterised by our behaviours, which are described by our personality traits. Like motivation, personality is inherently psychological; it cannot be observed directly, but its effects are everywhere. It drives and directs behaviour, and as a cause of people’s actions, it is intrinsically motivational. Research suggests that about 50% of our personality is heritable—inherited from our parents—and that our basic traits are relatively stable throughout our lives after adolescence. However, 'stable' does not mean 'static.' Traits activate and interact with the environment in highly dynamic ways.

A critical finding in psychological research is that people can change attitudes and behaviours spontaneously. Consider the example of an individual who, after a single conversation, finds the motivation to completely change their health habits and compete in extreme sports despite no previous athletic background. While their underlying personality remains the same, their 'personality state'—the expression of their traits—changes dramatically. This has immense importance for organisations. People can change their behaviours if the situational context is right. If employees are unhappy or unproductive, it is often a consequence of the interaction between their traits and the counter-productive situations created by the organisation.

4. The Five Factor Model and Traits

The Five-Factor Model (FFM), often referred to as 'The Big Five,' is the most widely researched model of personality and is consistently reliable across cultures. It defines human motivation through five continuous scales. Understanding these traits allows us to predict behaviour with significant accuracy. These traits are Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience.

Extraversion: Characterised as the extent to which individuals are assertive, friendly, and energetic. Extraverts crave excitement and stimulation and tend to be of a cheerful disposition. They are critical to the social mechanisms within teams and help stimulate discussion. However, extraverts do not perform well with tasks requiring high vigilance, such as detailed audit work. At an extreme, extraverts can be dominant and talkative, which may lead to leadership conflicts if a team has too many high scorers. Introverts, conversely, are serious, quiet, and value privacy. They are not inherently antisocial but find large-group interactions unfulfilling.

Agreeableness: Reflects kindness, trust, and warmth, rather than selfishness and hostility. Highly agreeable people are supportive, empathetic, and cooperative. This trait is highly desirable in team settings as it positively influences social processes and conflict resolution. It is often the best predictor of performance in interpersonal settings. However, exceptionally high agreeableness is not always found among organisational leaders, as it can sometimes hinder the tough decision-making required for survival. Disagreeable individuals are direct, critical, and competitive, often seen by their peers as hard-headed.

Conscientiousness: The tendency to be self-controlled, dedicated, hardworking, and orderly. Conscientious individuals set high standards and are well-organised. It is critical to life outcomes such as health, wealth, and occupational success. In a team setting, conscientiousness combines additively—the more conscientious the team members are, the better they perform. However, variance is a problem; if one team member is less conscientious than the others, it can lead to 'social loafing' by the more diligent members as they reduce their own effort to restore a sense of fairness.

Emotional Stability (Neuroticism): The tendency to be secure, calm, and poised. Its opposite, Neuroticism, involves feelings of anxiety, sadness, and vulnerability to stress. Neuroticism is associated with sleep disorders, immune system dysfunction, and mental health issues. However, neurotics actually gain status over time in organisations. Their anxiety causes them to be highly engaged in tasks and preparation, often exceeding expectations and surprising their supervisors. High emotional stability, while generally positive, can sometimes lack the 'reward-seeking' drive found in more anxious individuals.

Openness to Experience: Represented by intellectual curiosity, imaginativeness, and creativity. While openness is often the weakest predictor of standard job performance, it is vital in complex or novel situations. Teams high in openness develop more creative solutions to problems, though they may struggle with goal completion because they are easily distracted by the attraction of something new. Open individuals are highly adaptable to change, which is essential in the modern world. Closed individuals, by contrast, are practical and traditional but often set in their ways.

5. Bright and Dark Big Five Traits

It is a nuanced reality that every personality trait has both a bright and a dark side. Socially desirable traits, such as conscientiousness, can have negative implications when taken to extremes. Highly conscientious employees often adapt less well to organisational change because they are so focused on rules and order. In extreme forms, this manifests as rigidity, perfectionism, and workaholism. The bright side of being thorough becomes the dark side of being obsessive. Conversely, 'dark' traits can sometimes have 'bright' implications. For instance, neurotic individuals tend to make more accurate judgments because they are more sensitive to environmental risks and potential failure.

Extraversion also has risks; extremely high variants are more likely to be emotionally intrusive and engage in excessive self-disclosure. They may seek thrills and take risks that damage the corporate brand's reputation. Agreeableness, while universally loved, can be 'dark' if it leads to groupthink and the suppression of dissenting voices. Managing a team effectively requires understanding these poles. The goal is not to find 'perfect' people, but to compose teams that balance the bright and dark sides of these normal traits to create a functional whole. Organisations must move past the stigma of 'dark' traits and recognise that every individual is a blend of both positive and negative predispositions.

6. Trait Activation and Trait Interaction

Trait Interaction Theory suggests that interactions between people and their environments are reciprocal. Personality determines how we react to situations, but situations also determine which of our traits are 'activated.' Trait Activation Theory (TAT) explains that traits only manifest as observable behaviours when situations are trait-relevant. An extraverted salesperson, for instance, only displays their sociability when they are in an environment with potential clients. If they are forced to work alone on data entry, their extraversion will remain dormant, leading to a loss of motivation and an unfulfilling work experience.

The 'strength' of a situation is another critical factor. A 'strong' situation, like a strict legal code or a performance-driven audit, constrains behaviour. In these environments, everyone behaves the same way regardless of their personality. However, as organisations move toward flatter, more autonomous structures, the environment becomes a 'weak' situation. In weak situations, behaviour is guided by personality alone. This is why personality assessment is becoming more important—as we give employees more freedom, their individual traits have a much greater impact on the organisation's success. Understanding this allows leaders to engineer environments that activate the specific traits needed for a given task, such as creating 'strong' rules for safety while maintaining 'weak' situations for creative brainstorming.

7. Diversity or Homophily

Homophily is the tendency for individuals to bond with others who are similar to them. In organisational life, this is clarified by Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) theory. People are attracted to companies whose personality profiles align with their own, and over time, the organisation becomes more homogeneous as individuals who don't 'fit' leave. This creates a considerable dilemma: despite strategic intent to promote diversity, organisations often become echo chambers of the same personality types. Birds of a feather really do flock together, but in business, this flocking can lead to stagnation.

We often see global organisations in which the entire senior leadership team is composed of individuals with the same dominant trait. The result is unproductive conflict and destructive politics. Similarly, if a company’s management is comprised entirely of high extraverts while the workforce is introverted, it creates a toxic organisational climate. True diversity requires actively managing for 'psychological variety' to ensure that the organisation can navigate the complex, multi-layered challenges of the global market. This means intentionally hiring for 'counter-traits' that challenge the dominant culture and provide a wider range of problem-solving perspectives.

8. Personality and Authenticity

Authenticity is the degree to which an individual’s actions are congruent with their true beliefs and desires. Yet, most organisational cultures demand that employees 'shallow act'—mimicking prescribed behaviours while suppressing their authentic self. This creates 'emotional dissonance,' which is directly linked to burnout, disengagement, and sickness absence. Employee engagement globally stands at only 15%, with the remaining 85% of workers either not engaged or actively disengaged, representing a $7 trillion loss in productivity.

The difficulty of self-awareness is perfectly illustrated by the case of 'Madeline G.' A high-flying civil rights lawyer, Madeline viewed herself as highly trustworthy, altruistic, and warm. However, when her husband and boss assessed her, they both described her as very low in these traits. They saw her as incompetent and low in self-discipline. Madeline was completely oblivious to the impact of her behaviours on those around her. Eighteen months later, she had lost her job and her marriage. This lack of 'perceptual balance' is common; many individuals are insensitive to their own personality makeup while being intolerant of others.

The call for employees to 'be more authentic' is often a paradox. If an organisation defines what authenticity looks like, it is, by definition, forcing the employee to be inauthentic. This is particularly damaging for Gen Z, who have experienced a massive increase in serious psychological distress and are more sensitive to environments that undermine autonomy. True authenticity is an environmental outcome. Instead of training people to 'act' authentic, organisations must design situational contexts that support the activation of an employee's natural, pro-social traits. When we align the job with the person, authenticity follows naturally, and the costs of dissonance vanish.

Conclusion

As we navigate an increasingly complex world, the ability to understand who we are and who others are is the ultimate professional differentiator. Personality is not just a social label; it is a roadmap for human motivation and behaviour. By leveraging the Five Factor Model and Trait Activation Theory, we can move away from 'one-size-fits-all' people practices and create organisations that are not only productive but also psychologically healthy. The knowledge required to do better exists. What is required is the leadership will to apply it and create conditions in which the human capabilities of every employee can flourish authentically. Organisations that fail to create these conditions risk progressively destroying the human capital on which their future depends.

References

1.Bleidorn, W., et al., Personality maturation around the world: A cross-cultural examination of social-investment theory. Psychological Science, 2013. 24(12): p. 2530-2540.

2.McCrae, R.R. and P.T. Costa Jr, A five-factor theory of personality. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 1999. 2: p. 139-153.

3.Mõttus, R., et al., Personality Traits Below Facets: The Consensual Validity, Longitudinal Stability, Heritability, and Utility of Personality Nuances. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 2016.

4.Turkheimer, E., E. Pettersson, and E.E. Horn, A phenotypic null hypothesis for the genetics of personality. Annual review of psychology, 2014. 65: p. 515-540.

5.Widiger, T.A., The Oxford Handbook of the Five Factor Model. 2017: Oxford University Press.

6.Alnuaimi, O., L. Robert, and L. Maruping, Team Size, Dispersion, and Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Teams: A Perspective on the Theory of Moral Disengagement. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2010. 27(1): p. 203-230.

7.Bandura, A., Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. Journal of Moral Education, 2002. 31(2): p. 101-19.

8.Bandura, A., et al., Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in Exercise of Moral Agency. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1996. 71(2): p. 364-374.

9.Hobson, J.L., M. Stern, and A.F. Zimbelman, Mitigating the Harmful Effects of Social Interaction on Auditor Trust. 2017.

10.Chhokar, J.S., Leadership and Culture in India: The GLOBE Research Project 1. 2002.

11.Erez, M. and A. Somech, IS GROUP PRODUCTIVITY LOSS THE RULE OR THE EXCEPTION? EFFECTS OF CULTURE AND GROUP-BASED MOTIVATION. Academy of Management Journal, 1996. 39(6): p. 1513-1537.

12.Gallenkamp, J.V., et al. Conflict, Culture, and Performance in Virtual Teams: Results from a Cross-Cultural Study. in 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2010.

13.Grijalva, E. and D.A. Newman, Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): Meta‐analysis and consideration of collectivist culture, Big Five personality, and narcissism's facet structure. Applied Psychology, 2015. 64(1): p. 93-126.

14.Hofstede, G., Riding the waves of commerce: A test of trompenaars'“model” of national culture differences. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1996. 20(2): p. 189-198.

15.Hofstede, G., Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2011. 2(1): p. 8.

16.Hofstede, G. and R.R. McCrae, Personality and Culture Revisited: Linking Traits and Dimensions of Culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 2004. 38(1): p. 52-88.

17.Hofstede, G.H., Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Vol. 5. 1984: sage.

18.Hofstede, G.H., Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. 2001, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

19.Kwan, V.S. and S.D. Herrmann, The interplay between culture and personality. 2015.

20.McCrae, R.R. and A. Terracciano, Personality profiles of cultures: aggregate personality traits. Journal of personality and social psychology, 2005. 89(3): p. 407.

21.Minkov, M. and M. Minkov, A revision of Hofstede’s model of national culture: old evidence and new data from 56 countries. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 2017.

22.Taras, V., B.L. Kirkman, and P. Steel, Examining the impact of Culture's consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede's cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2010. 95(3): p. 405.

23.Triandis, H.C., Culture and social behavior. 1994: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

24.Triandis, H.C., The many dimensions of culture. The Academy of Management Executive, 2004. 18(1): p. 88-93.

25.Trompenaars, F. and C. Hampden-Turner, Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business. 2011: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

26.Trompenaars, F. and C. Hampden-Turner, Riding the waves of culture. 2014.

27.Baron-Cohen, S., Does autism occur more often in families of physicists, engineers, and mathematicians? Autism, 1998. 2(3): p. 296-301.

28.Schwartzman, B.C., J.J. Wood, and S.K. Kapp, Can the Five Factor Model of Personality Account for the Variability of Autism Symptom Expression? Multivariate Approaches to Behavioral Phenotyping in Adult Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2016. 46(1): p. 253-272.

29.Guion, R.M. and R.F. Gottier, VALIDITY OF PERSONALITY MEASURES IN PERSONNEL SELECTION. Personnel Psychology, 1965. 18(2): p. 135-164.

30.Spurk, D., A.C. Keller, and A. Hirschi, Do bad guys get ahead or fall behind? Relationships of the dark triad of personality with objective and subjective career success. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2016. 7(2): p. 113-121.

31.Back, M.D., S.C. Schmukle, and B. Egloff, Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? Decoding the narcissism-popularity link at zero acquaintance. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2010. 98(1): p. 132-45.

32.Maaß, U. and M. Ziegler, Narcissistic self-promotion is not moderated by the strength of situational cues. Personality and Individual Differences, 2017. 104: p. 482-488.

33.Paulhus, D., et al., Self-presentation success: A matter of self-promotion, not self-enhancement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2013. 43: p. 2042-2059.

34.Paulhus, D.L., et al., Self-presentation style in job interviews: the role of personality and culture. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2013. 43(10): p. 2042-2059.

35.Drucker, P.F., The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society. 1969: Harper Torchbooks.

36.Drucker, P.F., The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society. 2013: Elsevier Science.

37.Bosch-Sijtsema, P.M., et al., A Framework to Analyze Knowledge Work in Distributed Teams. 2011.

38.Higgs, M., U. Plewnia, and J. Ploch, Influence of team composition and task complexity on team performance. Team Performance Management, 2005. 11(7-8): p. 227-250.

39.Wageman, R., H. Gardner, and M. Mortensen, The changing ecology of teams: New directions for teams research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2012. 33(3): p. 301-315.

40.Cummings, J.N., Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization. Management Science, 2004(3): p. 352.

41.Glick, W.H., C.C. Miller, and G.P. Huber, The Impact of Upper-echelon diversity on organisational performance. In G.P. Huber & W.H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational Change and Redesign: Ideas and insights for Improving Performance, 176-214, in Organizational Change and Redesign: Ideas and insights for Improving Performance, G.P. Huber and W.H. Glick, Editors. 1995, Oxford University Press: New York. p. 176-214.

42.Hambrick, D.C., et al., When Groups Consist of Multiple Nationalities: Towards a New Understanding of the Implications. Organization Studies (Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.), 1998. 19(2): p. 181-205.

43.Horwitz, S.K. and I.B. Horwitz, The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of Team Demography. Journal of Management, 2007. 33(6): p. 987-1015.

44.Joshi, A., THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY ON THE EXTERNAL NETWORKING BEHAVIOR OF TEAMS. Academy of Management Review, 2006. 31(3): p. 583-595.

45.Bell, B.S. and S.W.J. Kozlowski, Three Conceptual Themes for Future Research on Teams. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2012. 5(1): p. 45-48.

46.Littler, C.R., R. Wiesner, and R. Dunford, The dynamics of delayering: Changing management structures in three countries. Journal of Management Studies, 2003. 40(2): p. 225-256.

47.McCann, L., J. Morris, and J. Hassard, Normalized intensity: The new labour process of middle management. Journal of Management Studies, 2008. 45(2): p. 343-371.

48.Tannenbaum, S.I., et al., Teams Are Changing: Are Research and Practice Evolving Fast Enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2012. 5(1): p. 2-24.

49.Aubé, C., V. Rousseau, and S. Tremblay, Team Size and Quality of Group Experience: The More the Merrier? Group Dynamics, 2011. 15(4): p. 357-375.

50.Bossard, J.H.S., THE LAW OF FAMILY INTERACTION. American Journal of Sociology, 1945. 50(4): p. 292-294.

51.Carton, A.M. and J.N. Cummings, A Theory of Subgroups in Work Teams. Academy of Management Review, 2012. 37(3): p. 441-470.

52.Graicunas, V.A., RELATIONSHIP IN ORGANIZATION. International Journal of Public Administration, 1998. 21(2-4): p. 627-633.

53.Hackman, J.R. and N. Vidmar, Effects of Size and Task Type on Group Performance and Member Reactions. Sociometry, 1970. 33(1): p. 37-54.

54.Hoegl, M., Smaller teams–better teamwork: How to keep project teams small. Business Horizons, 2005. 48(3): p. 209-214.

55.Ingham, A.G., et al., The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1974. 10(4): p. 371-384.

56.Kephart, W.M., A Quantitative Analysis of Intragroup Relationships. The American Journal of Sociology, 1950(6): p. 544.

57.Cross, R., R. Rebele, and A. Grant, Collaborative Overload. Harvard Business Review, 2016. 94(1-2): p. 74-79.

58.Schumpeter, The Collaboration Curse: The fashion for making employees collaborate has gone too far, in The Economist. 2016.

59.OECD. OECD Compendium of Productivity Indicators 2016. 2016[cited 2016; Available from: http://www.oecd.org/std/productivity-stats/oecd-compendium-of-productivity-indicators-22252126.htm.

60.Hamel, G. and M. Zanini, Excess Management Is Costing the U.S. $3 Trillion Per Year, in Harvard Business Review. 2016: Boston, USA.

61.Gilson, L.L., et al., Virtual Teams Research: 10 Years, 10 Themes, and 10 Opportunities. Journal of Management, 2014.

62.SHRM. Virtual Teams - Survey findings. [Internet] 201212/04/2015]; Survey Findings:[Available from: http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/articles/pages/virtualteams.aspx.

63.Perry, B., Virtual Teams Now a Reality. Two out of Three Companies Say They Will Rely More on Virtual Teams in the Future. Retrieved 5 October 2009. 2008.

64.Moreland, R.L., J.M. Levine, and M.L. Wingert, Creating the ideal group: Composition effects at work, in Understanding group behavior, Vol. 2: Small group processes and interpersonal relations, E.H.W.J.H. Davis, Editor. 1996, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc: Hillsdale, NJ, England. p. 11-35.

65.Zika-Viktorsson, A., P. Sundström, and M. Engwall, Project overload: An exploratory study of work and management in multi-project settings. International Journal of Project Management, 2006. 24(5): p. 385-394.

66.Bandura, A., Selective Activation and Disengagement of Moral Control. Journal of Social Issues, 1990. 46(1): p. 27-46.

67.George, J.M., EXTRINSIC AND INTRINSIC ORIGINS OF PERCEIVED SOCIAL LOAFING IN ORGANIZATIONS. Academy of Management Journal, 1992. 35(1): p. 191-202.

68.Karau, S.J. and K.D. Williams, Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1993. 65(4): p. 681-706.

69.Kidwell Jr, R.E. and N. Bennett, EMPLOYEE PROPENSITY TO WITHHOLD EFFORT: A CONCEPTUAL MODEL TO INTERSECT THREE AVENUES OF RESEARCH. Academy of Management Review, 1993. 18(3): p. 429-456.

70.Latané, B., K. Williams, and S. Harkins, Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979. 37(6): p. 822-832.

71.Liden, R.C., et al., Social Loafing: A Field Investigation. Journal of Management, 2004. 30(2): p. 285.

72.Roland, E.K., Loafing in the 21st century: Enhanced opportunities—and remedies—for withholding job effort in the new workplace. Business Horizons, 2010. 53: p. 543-552.

73.Schweitzer, L. and L. Duxbury, Conceptualizing and measuring the virtuality of teams. Information Systems Journal, 2010. 20(3): p. 267-295.

74.Govindarajan, V. and A.K. Gupota Building an Effective Global Business Team. MIT Sloane Management Review, 2001.

75.Martins, L.L., L.L. Gilson, and M.T. Maynard, Virtual Teams: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here? Journal of Management, 2004. 30(6): p. 805-835.

76.Coppola, N.W., S.R. Hiltz, and N.G. Rotter, Building trust in virtual teams. Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on, 2004. 47(2): p. 95-104.

77.Crisp, C.B. and S.L. Jarvenpaa, Swift trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 2015.

78.Germain, M.-L. and D. McGuire, The Role of Swift Trust in Virtual Teams and Implications for Human Resource Development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 2014. 16(3): p. 356-370.

79.Robert, L.P., A.R. Denis, and Y.-T.C. Hung, Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2009. 26(2): p. 241-279.

80.Seibert, S.E., M.L. Kraimer, and R.C. Liden, A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 2001. 44(2): p. 219-237.

81.Arnett, J.J., The evidence for generation we and against generation me. Emerging adulthood, 2013. 1(1): p. 5-10.

82.Donnellan, M.B., K.H. Trzesniewski, and R.W. Robins, An emerging epidemic of narcissism or much ado about nothing? Journal of Research in Personality, 2009. 43(3): p. 498-501.

83.Paris, J., Modernity and narcissistic personality disorder. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 2014. 5(2): p. 220.

84.Twenge, J.M. and W.K. Campbell, The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age of entitlement. 2009: Simon and Schuster.

85.Twenge, J.M. and J.D. Foster, Mapping the scale of the narcissism epidemic: Increases in narcissism 2002–2007 within ethnic groups. Journal of Research in Personality, 2008. 42(6): p. 1619-1622.

86.Twenge, J.M. and J.D. Foster, Birth cohort increases in narcissistic personality traits among American college students, 1982–2009. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2010. 1(1): p. 99-106.

87.Twenge, J.M., J.D. Miller, and W.K. Campbell, The narcissism epidemic: Commentary on Modernity and narcissistic personality disorder. 2014.

88.Brundtland, G.H., Mental health in the 21st century. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2000. 78: p. 411-411.

89.Eloul, L., A. Ambusaidi, and S. Al-Adawi, Silent epidemic of depression in women in the Middle East and North Africa region: emerging tribulation or fallacy? Sultan Qaboos university medical journal, 2009. 9(1): p. 5.

90.Hidaka, B.H., Depression as a disease of modernity: explanations for increasing prevalence. Journal of affective disorders, 2012. 140(3): p. 205-214.

91.Horwitz, A.V. and J.C. Wakefield, An epidemic of depression: major depressive disorder or normal sadness? Psychiatric Times, 2008. 25(13): p. 44-44.

92.Jane Costello, E., A. Erkanli, and A. Angold, Is there an epidemic of child or adolescent depression? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2006. 47(12): p. 1263-1271.

93.Mulder, R.T., An epidemic of depression or the medicalization of distress? Perspectives in biology and medicine, 2008. 51(2): p. 238-250.

94.Seligman, M.E., Why is there so much depression today? The waxing of the individual and the waning of the commons, in Contemporary psychological approaches to depression. 1990, Springer. p. 1-9.

95.Sternbach, O., The pursuit of happiness and the epidemic of depression. Psychoanalytic review, 1974. 61(2): p. 283.

96.Summerfield, D., Depression: epidemic or pseudo-epidemic? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2006. 99(3): p. 161-162.

97.Jakobwitz, S. and V. Egan, The dark triad and normal personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 2006. 40(2): p. 331-339.

98.Grodnitzky, G.R., The Allure of Toxic Leaders. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 2006. 20(4): p. 461.

99.Lipman-Blumen, J., The allure of toxic leaders: Why followers rarely escape their clutches. Ivey Business Journal, 2005. 69(3): p. 1-40.

100.Lipman-Blumen, J., Toxic leadership: When grand illusions masquerade as noble visions. Leader to Leader, 2005. 2005(36): p. 29-36.

101.Lipman-Blumen, J., The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians-and how we can survive them. 2006: Oxford University Press, USA.

102.Boddy, C., et al., Extreme managers, extreme workplaces: Capitalism, organizations and corporate psychopaths. Organization, 2015. 22(4): p. 530-551.

103.Funder, D.C., The personality puzzle. 1997: WW Norton & Co.

104.Funder, D.C., The Personality Puzzle: Seventh International Student Edition. 2015: WW Norton & Company.

105.Tett, R.P. and D.D. Burnett, A Personality Trait-Based Interactionist Model of Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003. 88(3): p. 500-517.

106.Tett, R.P. and H.A. Guterman, Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 2000. 34(4): p. 397-423.

107.Costa Jr, P. and R. Piedmont, Multivariate assessment: NEO-PI-R profiles of Madeline G, In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), Paradigms of personality assessment (pp. 262– 280). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Paradigms of personality assessment. 2003, New York: Guilford Press. 262-280.

108.Wiggins, J.S., Paradigms of personality assessment. 2003: Guilford Press.

109.Trobst, K., J. Wiggins, and J. Wiggins, Constructive alternativism in personality assessment: Madeline G. from multiple perspectives. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), Paradigms of personality assessment (pp. 296– 324). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Paradigms of personality assessment. 2003, New York: Guilford Press. 296-324.

110.Association, A.P., Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). 2013: American Psychiatric Pub.

111.Costa Jr, P.T. and R.R. McCrae, From catalog to classification: Murray's needs and the five-factor model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1988. 55(2): p. 258.

112.Costa, P.T. and R.R. McCrae, Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 1992. 4(1): p. 5-13.

113.McCrae, R.R., The Five-Factor Model and Its Assessment in Clinical Settings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1991. 57(3): p. 399.

114.McCrae, R.R. and J.P.T. Costa, Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Instruments and Observers. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1987. 52(1): p. 81-90.

115.McCrae, R.R. and P. Costa, Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits, in G.J. Boyle, D.H.,Saklofske (Eds), Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment, pp273-294, Los Angeles, CA, SAGE, in Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment, G.J. Boyle and S.E. D.H., Editors. 2008, SAGE: Los Angeles, CA. p. 273-294.

116.McCrae, R.R. and P.T. Costa, Jr., Personality trait structure as a human universal. The American Psychologist, 1997(5): p. 509.

117.McCrae, R.R. and O.P. John, An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its Applications. Journal of Personality, 1992. 60(2): p. 175-215.

118.Babiak, P. and R.D. Hare, Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. 2006: Regan Books New York, NY.

119.Furnham, A., G. Hyde, and G. Trickey, Do your dark side traits fit? Dysfunctional personalities in different work sectors. Applied Psychology, 2014. 63(4): p. 589-606.

120.Furnham, A. and D. Pendleton, Dark Side Traits at Work: Bright and Dark Side Traits and Job Value Preferences. Psychology, 2016. 7(05): p. 721.

121.Jonason, P.K., et al., Occupational niches and the Dark Triad traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 2014. 69: p. 119-123.

122.Kowalski, C.M., P.A. Vernon, and J.A. Schermer, Vocational interests and dark personality: Are there dark career choices? Personality and individual differences, 2017. 104: p. 43-47.

123.Schneider, T.J., M.J. McLarnon, and J.J. Carswell, Career Interests, Personality, and the Dark Triad. Journal of Career Assessment, 2017. 25(2): p. 338-351.

124.Akın, M., O. Amil, and M. Özdevecioğlu, Is Your Manager a Psychopath? An Evaluation of the Relationship between the Personality Types of Managers and Workers and the Levels of Psychopathy. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2016. 221: p. 76-85.

125.Babiak, P., C.S. Neumann, and R.D. Hare, Corporate psychopathy: Talking the walk. Behavioural Sciences and The Law, 2010. 28(2): p. 174-93.

126.Boddy, C., Corporate psychopaths: Organizational destroyers. 2011: Springer.

127.Boddy, C.R., Corporate psychopaths and organizational type. Journal of Public Affairs, 2010. 10(4): p. 300-312.

128.Boddy, C.R.P., R. Ladyshewsky, and P. Galvin, Leaders without ethics in global business: Corporate psychopaths. Journal of Public Affairs (14723891), 2010. 10(3): p. 121-138.

129.Campbell, W.K., et al., Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 2011. 21(4): p. 268-284.

130.Kijak, M., Investigating the Dark Triad in Relation to Career Choices, Job Satisfaction and Career Suitability. 2016, Dublin Business School.

131.Austin, E.J., Personality correlates of the broader autism phenotype as assessed by the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ). Personality and Individual Differences, 2005. 38(2): p. 451-460.

132.Lounsbury, J.W., et al., Distinctive personality traits of information technology professionals. Computer and Information Science, 2014. 7(3): p. 38.

133.Schneider, B., The people make the place. Personnel psychology, 1987. 40(3): p. 437-453.

134.Byrne, D., et al., The ubiquitous relationship: Attitude similarity and attraction: A cross-cultural study. Human Relations, 1971. 24(3): p. 201-207.

135.Byrne, D. and W. Griffitt, Similarity and awareness of similarity of personality characteristics as determinants of attraction. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1969.

136.Wetzel, C.G. and C.A. Insko, The similarity-attraction relationship: Is there an ideal one? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1982. 18(3): p. 253-276.

137.Christiansen, N. and R. Tett, Handbook of Personality at Work. 2013: Routledge.

138.Satterwhite, R.C., et al., A case for homogeneity of personality at the occupational level. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2009. 17(2): p. 154-164.

139.Bowers, C.A., WHEN MEMBER HOMOGENEITY IS NEEDED IN WORK TEAMS. Small Group Research, 2000. 31(3): p. 305.

140.Mischel, W., The interaction of person and situation. Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology, 1977. 333: p. 352.

141.Schmidt, J.A., B. Ogunfowora, and J.S. Bourdage, No person is an island: The effects of group characteristics on individual trait expression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2012. 33(7): p. 925-945.

142.Allport, G.W., Personality: A psychological interpretation. 1937.

143.Allport, G.W., Personality: A psychological interpretation. 1947: Henry Holt.

144.Allport, G.W., Personality: A psychological interpretation. 1937. New York: Henry Holt, 2013.

145.Murray, H.A., Explorations in personality. 1938.

146.Kenrick, D.T. and D.C. Funder, Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 1988. 43(1): p. 23.

147.Tett, R.P. and N.D. Christiansen, Personality tests at the crossroads: A response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt (2007). Personnel Psychology, 2007. 60(4): p. 967-993.

148.Blickle, G., et al., The interactive effects of conscientiousness, openness to experience, and political skill on job performance in complex jobs: The importance of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2013. 34(8): p. 1145-1164.

149.Nettle, D., The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 2006. 61(6): p. 622.

150.Judge, T.A. and J.A. LePine, The Bright and Dark Sides of Personality: Implications for Personnel Selection and Team Configuration. In J. Langan-Fox, C.L. Cooper, & R.J.Klimoski (Eds.), Research Companion to the Dysfunctional Workplace: Management Challenges and Symptoms, Chapter 20, pp.332-355, in Research Companion to the Dysfunctional Workplace: Management Challenges and Symptoms, J. Langan-Fox, C.L. Cooper, and R.J. Klimoski, Editors. 2007, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK. p. 332-355.

151.Barrick, M.R. and M.K. Mount, Autonomy as a Moderator of the Relationships Between the Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1993. 78(1): p. 111-118.

152.Goldberg, L.R., The structure of phenotypic personality traits. The American Psychologist, 1993(1): p. 26.

153.Barrick, M.R. and M.K. Mount, THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYSIS. Personnel Psychology, 1991. 44(1): p. 1-26.

154.Barrick, M.R., et al., Relating Member Ability and Personality to Work-Team Processes and Team Effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1998. 83(3): p. 377-391.

155.Barrick, M.R., M.K. Mount, and T.A. Judge, Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next? International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 2001. 9(1/2): p. 9.

156.Bell, S.T., Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2007. 92(3): p. 595-615.

157.Bergner, S., A.C. Neubauer, and A. Kreuzthaler, Broad and narrow personality traits for predicting managerial success. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 2010. 19(2): p. 177-199.

158.Hurtz, G.M. and J.J. Donovan, Personality and Job Performance: The Five Revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000. 85(6): p. 869-879.

159.Lepine, J.A., et al., Effects of Individual Differences on the Performance of Hierarchical Decision-Making Teams: Much More Than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997. 82(5): p. 803-811.

160.Mohammed, S. and L.C. Angell, PERSONALITY HETEROGENEITY IN TEAMS: Which Differences Make a Difference for Team Performance? Small Group Research, 2003. 34(6): p. 651-677.

161.Neuman, G.A., S.H. Wagner, and N.D. Christiansen, The Relationship Between Work-Team Personality Composition and the Job Performance of Teams. Group & Organization Management, 1999. 24(1): p. 28-45.

162.Neuman, G.A. and J. Wright, Team Effectiveness: Beyond Skills and Cognitive Ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1999. 84(3): p. 376-389.

163.Peeters, M.A.G., et al., The Big Five Personality Traits and Individual Satisfaction With the Team. Small Group Research, 2006. 37(2): p. 187-211.

164.Salgado, J.F., Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 2003. 76(3): p. 323-346.

165.Salgado, J.F., S. Moscoso, and A. Berges, Conscientiousness, Its Facets, and the Prediction of Job Performance Ratings: Evidence against the narrow measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2013. 21(1): p. 74-84.

166.Van Vianen, A.E. and C.K. De Dreu, Personality in teams: Its relationship to social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2001. 10(2): p. 97-120.

167.LePine, J.A., Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members' cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003. 88(1): p. 27-39.

168.Molleman, E., A. Nauta, and K.A. Jehn, Person-Job Fit Applied to Teamwork A Multilevel Approach. Small Group Research, 2004. 35(5): p. 515-539.

169.Barry, B. and G.L. Stewart, Composition, Process, and Performance in Self-Managed Groups: The Role of Personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997. 82(1): p. 62-78.

170.Taggar, S., Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 2002. 45(2): p. 315-330.

171.Harkins, S.G., B. Latane, and K. Williams, Social loafing: Allocating effort or taking it easy? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1980. 16(5): p. 457-465.

172.Karau, S.J. and J.W. Hart, Group cohesiveness and social loafing: Effects of a social interaction manipulation on individual motivation within groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1998. 2(3): p. 185-191.

173.Ulke, H.E. and R. Bilgic, Investigating the Role of the Big Five on the Social Loafing of Information Technology Workers. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2011(3): p. 301.

174.Humphrey, S.E., et al., Trait Configurations in Self-Managed Teams: A Conceptual Examination of the Use of Seeding for Maximizing and Minimizing Trait Variance in Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2007. 92(3): p. 885-892.

175.Carter, N.T., et al., The Downsides of Extreme Conscientiousness for Psychological Well-being: The Role of Obsessive Compulsive Tendencies. Journal of Personality, 2016. 84(4): p. 510-522.

176.Le, H., et al., Too much of a good thing: curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2011. 96(1): p. 113.

177.Saulsman, L.M. and A.C. Page, The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical psychology review, 2004. 23(8): p. 1055-1085.

178.Graziano, W.G., E.C. Hair, and J.F. Finch, Competitiveness mediates the link between personality and group performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1997. 73(6): p. 1394.

179.Graziano, W.G., The development of agreeableness as a dimension of personality. The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood, 1994: p. 339-354.

180.Mount, M.K., M.R. Barrick, and G.L. Stewart, Five-Factor Model of personality and Performance in Jobs Involving Interpersonal Interactions. Human Performance, 1998. 11(2-3): p. 145-165.

181.Graziano, W.G., L.A. Jensen-Campbell, and E.C. Hair, Perceiving Interpersonal Conflict and Reacting to It: The Case for Agreeableness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1996. 70(4): p. 820-835.

182.Stewart, G.L., et al., AN EXPLORATION OF MEMBER ROLES AS A MULTILEVEL LINKING MECHANISM FOR INDIVIDUAL TRAITS AND TEAM OUTCOMES. Personnel Psychology, 2005. 58(2): p. 343-365.

183.Mumford, T.V., et al., The Team Role Test: Development and validation of a team role knowledge situational judgment test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2008. 93(2): p. 250.

184.Prewett, M.S., et al., The Team Personality-Team Performance Relationship Revisited: The Impact of Criterion Choice, Pattern of Workflow, and Method of Aggregation. Human Performance, 2009. 22(4): p. 273-296.

185.Van Scotter, J.R. and S.J. Motowidlo, Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1996. 81(5): p. 525.

186.Mohammed, S., J.E. Mathieu, and A.L.B. Bartlett, Technical-administrative task performance, leadership task performance, and contextual performance: considering the influence of team- and task-related composition variables. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2002. 23(7): p. 795-814.

187.Klimoski, R. and S. Mohammed, Team mental model: construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 1994. 20(2): p. 403-437.

188.Rothstein, M.G. and R.D. Goffin, The use of personality measures in personnel selection: what does current research support? Human Resource Management Review, 2006. 16(2): p. 155-180.

189.Kozlowski, S.W.J. and D.R. Ilgen, Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest (Wiley-Blackwell), 2006. 7(3): p. 77-124.

190.Costa Jr, P.T. and R.R. McCrae, Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and individual differences, 1992. 13(6): p. 653-665.

191.Ahmetoglu, G. and V. Swami, Do women prefer “nice guys”? The effect of male dominance behavior on women's ratings of sexual attractiveness. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 2012. 40(4): p. 667-672.

192.Doerrenberg, P., et al., Nice Guys Finish Last: Do Honest Taxpayers Face Higher Tax Rates? Kyklos, 2014. 67(1): p. 29-53.

193.Lin-Healy, F. and D.A. Small, Nice guys finish last and guys in last are nice: The clash between doing well and doing good. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2013. 4(6): p. 692-698.

194.Judge, T.A., B.A. Livingston, and C. Hurst, Do nice guys—and gals—really finish last? The joint effects of sex and agreeableness on income. Journal of personality and social psychology, 2012. 102(2): p. 390.

195.Judge, T.A., et al., Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of applied psychology, 2002. 87(4): p. 765.

196.Borman, W.C. and S. Motowidlo, Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. Personnel selection in organizations; San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993: p. 71.

197.Riggio, R.E., Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 1986. 51(3): p. 649.

198.Diener, E., R.J. Larsen, and R.A. Emmons, Person× Situation interactions: Choice of situations and congruence response models. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1984. 47(3): p. 580.

199.Anderson, C., et al., Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of personality and social psychology, 2001. 81(1): p. 116.

200.Lucas, R.E., et al., Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 2000. 79(3): p. 452.

201.Porter, C.O.L.H., et al., Backing Up Behaviors in Teams: The Role of Personality and Legitimacy of Need. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003. 88(3): p. 391-403.

202.Kristof-Brown, A., M.R. Barrick, and C. Kay Stevens, When Opposites Attract: A Multi-Sample Demonstration of Complementary Person-Team Fit on Extraversion. Journal of Personality, 2005. 73(4): p. 935-958.

203.Schultz, B., S.M. Ketrow, and D.M. Urban, Improving Decision Quality in the Small Group The Role of the Reminder. Small Group Research, 1995. 26(4): p. 521-541.

204.Hogan, R., G.J. Curphy, and J. Hogan, What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American psychologist, 1994. 49(6): p. 493.

205.John, O.P. and S. Srivastava, The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L.A. Pervin & O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research, in Handbook of personality: Theory and research, L.A.P.O.P. John, Editor. 1999, Guilford Press: New York. p. 102-138.

206.Kichuk, S.L. and W.H. Wiesner, Work teams: Selecting members for optimal performance. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 1998. 39(1-2): p. 23.

207.Mazur, A., A cross-species comparison of status in small established groups. American Sociological Review, 1973: p. 513-530.

208.Hogan, R.T., Personality and personality measurement, in Handbook in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd Ed, M.D. Dunnette, Editor. 1991, Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA. p. 873-919.

209.Vodosek, M., Personality and the Formation of Social Networks. The American Sociological Association, Atlanta, GA, 2003.

210.Hogan, R. and J. Hogan, Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2001. 9(1‐2): p. 40-51.

211.Judge, T.A., R.F. Piccolo, and T. Kosalka, The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly, 2009. 20(6): p. 855-875.

212.Bendersky, C. and N. Parikh Shah, THE DOWNFALL OF EXTRAVERTS AND RISE OF NEUROTICS: THE DYNAMIC PROCESS OF STATUS ALLOCATION IN TASK GROUPS. Academy of Management Journal, 2013. 56(2): p. 387.

213.Driskell, J.E., R. Hogan, and E. Salas, Personality and group performance, in Group processes and intergroup relations. 1987, Sage Publications, Inc: Thousand Oaks, CA, US. p. 91-112.

214.Hough, L.M., The 'Big Five' Personality Variables--Construct Confusion: Description Versus Prediction. Human Performance, 1992. 5(1-2): p. 139-155.

215.Haythorn, W., The influence of individual members on the characteristics of small groups. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953. 48(2): p. 276.

216.Heslin, R., Predicting group task effectiveness from member characteristics. Psychological Bulletin, 1964. 62(4): p. 248-256.

217.Thoms, P., K.S. Moore, and K.S. Scott, The relationship between self‐efficacy for participating in self‐managed work groups and the big five personality dimensions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1996. 17(4): p. 349-362.

218.Henderson, S., D.G. Byrne, and P. Duncan-Jones, Neurosis and the social environment. 1981: Academic Press Sydney.

219.Stokes, J.P., The relation of social network and individual difference variables to loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1985. 48(4): p. 981.

220.Sangster, J. and C. Ellison, Mental illness, loneliness and helplessness: a challenge for research and therapy. Mental Health & Society, 1978.

221.Judge, T.A. and J.E. Bono, Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied Psychology, 2001. 86(1): p. 80.

222.Judge, T.A., et al., Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of personality and social psychology, 2002. 83(3): p. 693.

223.McCrae, R.R. and P.T. Costa Jr, Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. 1997.

224.Griffin, B. and B. Hesketh, Why Openness to Experience is not a Good Predictor of Job Performance. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 2004. 12(3): p. 243-251.

225.Penney, L.M., E. David, and L.A. Witt, A review of personality and performance: Identifying boundaries, contingencies, and future research directions. Human Resource Management Review, 2011. 21(4): p. 297-310.

226.Peeters, M.A.G., et al., Personality and team performance: a meta‐analysis. European Journal of Personality, 2006. 20(5): p. 377-396.

227.Driskell, J.E., et al., What Makes a Good Team Player? Personality and Team Effectiveness. Group Dynamics, 2006. 10(4): p. 249-271.

228.Salgado, J.F., The Five Factor Model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied psychology, 1997. 82(1): p. 30.

229.McCrae, R.R., Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological bulletin, 1996. 120(3): p. 323.

230.Antonioni, D., Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1998. 9(4): p. 336-355.

231.Barrick, M.R., L. Parks, and M.K. Mount, SELF-MONITORING AS A MODERATOR OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERSONALITY TRAITS AND PERFORMANCE. Personnel Psychology, 2005. 58(3): p. 745-767.

232.Minbashian, A., J. Earl, and J.E.H. Bright, Openness to Experience as a Predictor of Job Performance Trajectories. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 2013. 62(1): p. 1-12.

233.Boddy, C., R. Ladyshewsky, and P. Galvin, The Influence of Corporate Psychopaths on Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Commitment to Employees. 2010, Springer Science & Business Media B.V. p. 1-19.

234.Boddy, C.R., The corporate psychopaths theory of the global financial crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 2011. 102(2): p. 255-259.

235.Boddy, C.R., Corporate psychopaths, bullying and unfair supervision in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 2011. 100(3): p. 367-379.

236.Paulhus, D.L. and K.M. Williams, The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of research in personality, 2002. 36(6): p. 556-563.

237.Freud, S., On narcissism. An introduction. The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (SE), vol. 14. 1914, London: The Hogarth Press.

238.Holme, B., Myths of Greece and Rome. 1981, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.

239.Kansi, J., The narcissistic personality inventory: applicability in a Swedish population sample. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2003. 44(5): p. 441-448.

240.Raskin, R.N. and C.S. Hall, A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological reports, 1979.

241.Rhodewalt, F. and B. Peterson. 37. Narcissism. in Handbook of individual differences in social behavior. 2009.

242.Brown, A.D., Narcissism, identity, and legitimacy. Academy of management Review, 1997. 22(3): p. 643-686.

243.MacNeil, B.M. and R.R. Holden, Psychopathy and the detection of faking on self-report inventories of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 2006. 41(4): p. 641-651.

244.Resick, C.J., et al., The bright-side and the dark-side of CEO personality: examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership, and strategic influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2009. 94(6): p. 1365.

245.Holian, R., Management decision making, ethical issues and “emotional” intelligence. Management Decision, 2006. 44(8): p. 1122-1138.

246.O'Boyle Jr, E.H., et al., A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2012. 97(3): p. 557.

247.Bushman, B.J., et al., Looking again, and harder, for a link between low self‐esteem and aggression. Journal of personality, 2009. 77(2): p. 427-446.

248.Christie, R. and F.L. Geis, Studies in Machiavellianism. Social Psychology. 1970: New York ; London : Academic P., 1970.

249.Jones, D.N. and D.L. Paulhus, Machiavellianism. 2009.

250.McGuire, D. and K. Hutchings, A Machiavellian analysis of organisational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 2006. 19(2): p. 192-209.

251.Kish-Gephart, J.J., D.A. Harrison, and L.K. Treviño, Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of applied psychology, 2010. 95(1): p. 1.

252.Dahling, J.J., B.G. Whitaker, and P.E. Levy, The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of management, 2008.

253.Ferris, G.R., et al., Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research directions. Research in Multi Level Issues, 2002. 1: p. 179-254.

254.Ferris, G.R., et al., Political skill construct and criterion-related validation: A two-study investigation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2008. 23(7): p. 744-771.

255.Ferris, G.R., S.L. Davidson, and P.L. Perrewe, Political skill at work: Impact on work effectiveness. 2005: Davies-Black Publishing.

256.Ferris, G.R., et al., Social influence processes in organizations and human resources systems. Research in personnel and human resources management, 2002. 21: p. 65-127.

257.Ferris, G.R. and T.R. King, Politics in human resources decisions: A walk on the dark side. Organizational Dynamics, 1991. 20(2): p. 59-71.

258.Ferris, G.R., et al., Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of Management, 2005. 31(1): p. 126-152.

259.Ferris, G.R., et al., Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 2007. 33(3): p. 290-320.

260.Ferris, G.R., L.A. Witt, and W.A. Hochwarter, Interaction of social skill and general mental ability on job performance and salary. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001. 86(6): p. 1075.

261.Hare, R.D., The Hare psychopathy checklist-revised: Manual. 1991: Multi-Health Systems, Incorporated.

262.Hare, R.D., Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. 1999: Guilford Press.

263.Levenson, M.R., K.A. Kiehl, and C.M. Fitzpatrick, Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1995. 68(1): p. 151.

264.Hare, R.D. and C.S. Neumann, Psychopathy: Assessment and forensic implications. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 2009. 54(12): p. 791-802.

265.Hart, S.D. and R.D. Hare, Psychopathy: Assessment and association with criminal conduct. 1997.

266.Hare, R. The predators among us. in Keynote address. Canadian Police Association Annual General Meeting, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. 2002.

267.Cleckley, H., The mask of sanity; an attempt to reinterpret the so-called psychopathic personality. 1941.

268.Cleckley, H.M., The mask of sanity. Postgraduate Medicine, 1951. 9(3): p. 193-197.

269.Cleckley, H.M., The Mask Of Sanity: An Attempt To Clarify Some Issues About the So-Called Psychopathic Personality 3rd Edition. 2016: Pickle Partners Publishing.

270.Babiak, P., C.S. Neumann, and R.D. Hare, Corporate psychopathy: Talking the walk. Behavioral sciences & the law, 2010. 28(2): p. 174-193.

271.Babiak, P., When psychopaths go to work: A case study of an industrial psychopath. Applied Psychology, 1995. 44(2): p. 171-188.

272.Board, B.J. and K. Fritzon, Disordered personalities at work. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2005. 11(1): p. 17-32.

273.Cooke, D.J. and C. Michie, An item response theory analysis of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist--Revised. Psychological assessment, 1997. 9(1): p. 3.

274.Babiak, P., Psychopathic manipulation at work. The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide, 2000: p. 287-311.

275.Boddy, C., The impact of corporate psychopaths on corporate reputation and marketing. The Marketing Review, 2012. 12(1): p. 79-89.

276.Boddy, C.R., The implications of corporate psychopaths for business and society: An initial examination and a call to arms. Australasian Journal of Business and Behavioural Sciences, 2005. 1(2): p. 30-40.

277.Boddy, C.R., The dark side of management decisions: Organisational psychopaths. Management decision, 2006. 44(10): p. 1461-1475.

278.Boddy, C.R., Corporate psychopaths in Australian workplaces: Their influence on organisational outcomes. 2009.

279.Boddy, C.R., Corporate psychopaths, conflict, employee affective well-being and counterproductive work behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 2014. 121(1): p. 107-121.

280.Boddy, C.R., Psychopathic leadership a case study of a corporate psychopath CEO. Journal of Business Ethics, 2015: p. 1-16.

281.Hercz, R., Psychopaths among us. Saturday Night Magazine, 2001: p. 23-29.

282.LeBreton, J.M., J.F. Binning, and A.J. Adorno, Subclinical psychopaths. Comprehensive handbook of personality and psychopathology, 2006. 1: p. 388-411.

283.Lynam, D.R., et al., Assessing the basic traits associated with psychopathy: development and validation of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment. Psychological Assessment, 2011. 23(1): p. 108.

284.Point, T., Corporate Psychopaths. Creating Global Citizens and Responsible Leadership: A special theme issue of The Journal of Corporate Citizenship (Issue 49), 2013. 49: p. 8.

285.Stout, M., The ice people: living among us are people with no conscience, no emotions and no conception of love. Welcome to the chilling world of the sociopath, in Psychology Today. 2005, Sussex Publishers, Inc.

286.Williams, K.M., C. Nathanson, and D.L. Paulhus, Identifying and profiling scholastic cheaters: their personality, cognitive ability, and motivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2010. 16(3): p. 293.

287.Mahmut, M.K., J. Homewood, and R.J. Stevenson, The characteristics of non-criminals with high psychopathy traits: Are they similar to criminal psychopaths? Journal of Research in Personality, 2008. 42(3): p. 679-692.

288.Caponecchia, C., A.Y. Sun, and A. Wyatt, ‘Psychopaths’ at work? Implications of lay persons’ use of labels and behavioural criteria for psychopathy. Journal of Business Ethics, 2012. 107(4): p. 399-408.

289.Bandura, A., Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 1977. 84(2): p. 191.

290.Bandura, A., Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational psychologist, 1993. 28(2): p. 117-148.

291.Bandura, A. and D.H. Schunk, Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1981. 41(3): p. 586.

292.Schminke, M., M.L. Ambrose, and D.O. Neubaum, The effect of leader moral development on ethical climate and employee attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2005. 97(2): p. 135-151.

293.Gunnthorsdottir, A., K. McCabe, and V. Smith, Using the Machiavellianism instrument to predict trustworthiness in a bargaining game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2002. 23(1): p. 49-66.

294.Campbell, W.K., et al., Narcissism and comparative self-enhancement strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 2000. 34(3): p. 329-347.

295.Belmi, P. and J. Pfeffer, How “organization” can weaken the norm of reciprocity: The effects of attributions for favors and a calculative mindset. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2015. 1(1): p. 36-57.

296.Deckop, J.R., C.C. Cirka, and L.M. Andersson, Doing unto others: The reciprocity of helping behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 2003. 47(2): p. 101-113.

297.Gallucci, M. and M. Perugini, Information seeking and reciprocity: A transformational analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2003. 33(4): p. 473-495.

298.Gilliam, D.A., et al., Propensity for reciprocity among frontline employees. Journal of Services Marketing, 2016. 30(3).

299.Gouldner, A.W., THE NORM OF RECIPROCITY: A PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. American Sociological Review, 1960. 25(2): p. 161-178.

300.Settoon, R.P., N. Bennett, and R.C. Liden, Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader–member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of applied psychology, 1996. 81(3): p. 219.

301.Cook, K.S. and R.M. Emerson, Social exchange theory. 1987, Newbury Park [etc.]: Sage.

302.Cropanzano, R. and M.S. Mitchell, Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review. Journal of Management, 2005. 31(6): p. 874-900.

303.Emerson, R.M., Social exchange theory. Annual review of sociology, 1976: p. 335-362.

304.Rousseau, D., Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. 1995: Sage Publications.

305.Rousseau, D.M., Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee responsibilities and rights journal, 1989. 2(2): p. 121-139.

306.Boyd, N.G. and R.R. Taylor, A developmental approach to the examination of friendship in leader-follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 1998. 9(1): p. 1-25.

307.Duncan, P. and R. Herrera, The Relationship Between Diversity and the Multidimensional Measure of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX-MDM). Journal of Management, 2014. 15(1): p. 11.

308.Graen, G.B. and M. Uhl-Bien, Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 1995. 6(2): p. 219-247.

309.Rockstuhl, T., et al., Leader–member exchange (LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2012. 97(6): p. 1097.

310.Uhl-Bien, M., G.B. Graen, and T.A. Scandura, IMPLICATIONS OF LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE (LMX) FOR STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS: RELATIONSHIPS AS SOCIAL CAPITAL FOR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE. Research in personnel and human resources management, 2000. 18: p. 137-185.

311.Wang, L.C., Workplace Social Exchange: Substitutes and Neutralizers of LMX in Team Contexts. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014. 2014(1).

312.Farmer, S.M., L. Van Dyne, and D. Kamdar. The Contextualized Self: How Team-Member Exchange Leads to Coworker Identification and Helping OCB. in Academy of Management Proceedings. 2013. Academy of Management.

313.Liu, Y., R. Loi, and L.W. Lam, Linking organizational identification and employee performance in teams: The moderating role of team-member exchange. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2011. 22(15): p. 3187-3201.

314.Seers, A., Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 1989. 43(1): p. 118-135.

315.Seers, A., M. Petty, and J.F. Cashman, Team-member exchange under team and traditional management a naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Group & Organization Management, 1995. 20(1): p. 18-38.