Dark Triad as Selection by the Very Wealthy: Elite-Aligned Leadership Emergence Under Person-Situation Dynamics by Stefan A. GEIER

 

Dark Triad as Selection by the Very Wealthy: Elite-Aligned Leadership Emergence Under Person-Situation Dynamics

by Stefan A. Geier

Institute for Structuralistic Theory of Sciences Simssee ISTS, Gerhart-Hauptmann-Straße 6, 83071 Haidholzen, Germany, and LMU Munich, Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, 80539 Munich, Germany;

To whom correspondence should be addressed: Stefan Geier, Institute for Structuralistic Theory of Sciences Simssee ISTS, Gerhart-Hauptmann-Straße 6, 83071 Haidholzen, Germany, Europe, Blue Planet Earth, email: wissenschaftstheorie.simssee.1@gmail.com

 

- Discussion and Critique Welcome! -

 

Abstract

The Dark Triad, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, captures socially aversive personality tendencies that can facilitate status striving, strategic manipulation, and callous decision-making in nonclinical populations (1–3). Leadership selection, however, is also shaped by the incentives and gatekeeping structures created by concentrated wealth and institutional power. Here, I synthesize evidence that (i) Dark Triad traits are elevated among leaders and increase with leadership level, with particularly strong links to leadership emergence rather than effectiveness; (ii) these traits predict counterproductive and norm-violating workplace behavior; and (iii) economic elites possess multiple channels, corporate governance, ownership, and organized influence, through which they can shape who is selected, retained, and rewarded in leadership roles.

I propose an “elite-aligned selection” model in which the very wealthy and powerful need not coordinate conspiratorially to produce Dark Triad overrepresentation in leadership. Instead, elite-controlled selection environments can favor candidates who reliably pursue hierarchy-maintaining strategies, especially under threat. Classic social psychology further shows that authority structures and role systems can elicit harmful behavior even among ordinary individuals, underscoring that selection processes operate through person–situation interactions rather than traits alone. The model yields falsifiable predictions (e.g., stronger Dark Triad gradients under higher ownership concentration and threat salience) and highlights measurement strategies suited to elite samples.

 

One-sentence summary

Concentrated wealth can act as a gatekeeping environment that, through incentives and screening, disproportionately selects leaders higher in Dark Triad traits, especially when institutions prioritize conserving existing wealth and power distributions.

 

 

Main text

From “who rises” to “who is selected”

The Dark Triad construct was introduced to capture three interrelated but distinct socially aversive traits, narcissism (grandiosity and entitlement), Machiavellianism (strategic manipulation), and psychopathy (callousness and low empathy), as dimensional variation in general populations (1–3). In organizational research, these traits predict outcomes that matter for leadership selection: impression management, interpersonal exploitation, and rule bending can facilitate advancement in competitive “tournament” structures, even when downstream effects on teams and institutions are harmful (4, 5). Recent integrative reviews emphasize that effects are heterogeneous and often depend on trait combinations (e.g., Dark Triad traits interacting with conscientiousness or emotional stability), organizational regulation, and hierarchical level (6, 7).

A separate literature in political science and political economy documents that economic elites and business-oriented organized interests exert substantial independent influence over policy outcomes in the United States, even when average citizens’ preferences are modeled alongside elite preferences (18). In firms, canonical governance models describe how ownership and control shape managerial selection and incentives, creating channels by which concentrated capital can influence leader appointment and retention (15–17). These bodies of evidence motivate a selection question: under what conditions do elite gatekeeping structures make Dark Triad traits more likely to be rewarded at the top?

Evidence base I: Dark Triad traits are elevated in leadership, but effects depend on outcome and context

Meta-analytic evidence indicates that narcissism is reliably associated with leadership emergence (being perceived as leader-like or attaining leadership), while associations with leadership effectiveness are weaker and may be nonlinear (e.g., diminishing or reversing at high levels) (8). Psychopathy shows a smaller and more context-dependent emergence advantage; evidence for effectiveness is generally negative or null, suggesting that “getting the role” and “doing the job well” can diverge (9). Consistent with hierarchical sorting, multi-rater studies find that Dark Triad traits increase with leadership level, including among top executives and founders (10).

Career outcome studies further show trait-specific patterns: narcissism often relates to visibility and objective rewards (e.g., salary), while Machiavellianism can relate to attaining leadership roles and higher earnings in some labor-market contexts (11, 12). These findings support supply-side plausibility: leadership pipelines can yield a pool of candidates enriched for Dark Triad tendencies.

Evidence base II: Behavioral correlates can be instrumentally useful for wealth and power conservation

A central reason Dark Triad traits might be selected in elite-aligned contexts is that they correlate with behaviors that can be instrumentally useful when protecting incumbent advantages: norm flexibility, strategic deception, intimidation, and reduced empathy for out-groups or losers in distributive conflict. A large meta-analysis links Dark Triad traits to counterproductive work behavior, with Machiavellianism and psychopathy showing particularly consistent associations with harmful or exploitative conduct (5). Annual-review treatments emphasize that effects are contingent: certain task environments may reward aggressive agency or risk tolerance, even while interpersonal and ethical costs accumulate (6, 14).

Evidence does not support uniform “advantages.” Studies at the CEO level suggest a dual-edge pattern: dark-trait leadership can sometimes benefit external-facing outcomes while harming internal outcomes, with competitive rivalry moderating these effects (13). Likewise, a 2025 systematic review reports that leaders high in Dark Triad traits can show reduced performance, particularly in lower hierarchical roles, and that regulatory context and other personality traits moderate impacts (7). These results underscore that any selection advantage may be short-term, context-bound, or offset by long-run institutional costs.

Evidence base III: The very wealthy and powerful can shape selection environments

The “elite-aligned selection” hypothesis requires plausible pathways by which concentrated wealth and power shape leadership selection criteria and outcomes. In corporate governance, agency theory and related models specify how owners, boards, and control rights structure managerial incentives and monitoring (15–17). In political systems, economic elites and business-oriented organized interests exert substantial independent influence over policy outcomes (18). Sociological work on business political activity documents how corporate networks and elite “inner circles” coordinate resources, access, and agenda setting (19). Ultra-wealthy individuals also enter politics directly; cross-national evidence documents billionaire candidates’ high success rates and their focus on influential offices (20).

Authority, roles, and system effects: what Milgram and Zimbardo add (and what they do not)

Classic social psychology is often invoked to argue that “ordinary” people can perpetrate harm under authority and role pressure. Milgram’s obedience studies demonstrated high rates of compliance with an experimenter’s instructions to administer escalating shocks under conditions of perceived legitimate authority (21). A partial replication conducted under contemporary ethical safeguards still observed substantial obedience, suggesting persistence of the core phenomenon (22). At the same time, reinterpretations emphasize identification-based processes (“engaged followership”) and the meaning participants attach to the authority’s cause, challenging purely “mindless obedience” accounts (23, 24).

The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) is commonly cited as evidence that role systems and institutional contexts can rapidly elicit cruelty (25). However, subsequent work suggests that strong situationist interpretations were overstated: self-selection effects are plausible (volunteers for “prison life” advertisements scored higher on Machiavellianism, narcissism, social dominance, and aggressiveness and lower on empathy and altruism) (26), and archival analyses indicate experimenter leadership and direction shaped guard behavior (27). Zimbardo’s broader “Lucifer Effect” thesis remains influential as a system-level framing of how structures can enable harm, but SPE-based claims must be interpreted in light of these methodological critiques (28, 27).

For the present argument, the key contribution of Milgram and the SPE tradition is that selection operates through person–situation dynamics. Elite gatekeepers can (i) select leaders with traits that make them reliable instruments of conservation, and (ii) design authority structures, incentive systems, and role narratives that elicit compliance and suppress dissent even among non–Dark Triad actors. This dual mechanism increases plausibility while avoiding an unfalsifiable claim of universal, intentional selection.

An elite-aligned selection model: active preference vs. structural selection

The model distinguishes two pathways that can produce the same observable outcome, overrepresentation of Dark Triad traits among elite-backed leaders, without requiring a unitary conspiracy.
Active preference: elite gatekeepers (owners, boards, major donors, patronage networks) prefer candidates who signal ruthlessness, strategic manipulation, and low empathy because these traits predict willingness to defend incumbent advantages under threat.
Structural selection: even absent deliberate intent, elite-controlled systems may reward behaviors correlated with Dark Triad traits (e.g., self-promotion, norm bending, hard bargaining) because selection criteria overweight emergence cues and tolerate ethical externalities.
Both pathways predict stronger Dark Triad sorting when stakes are high and accountability is weak, but they make different predictions about gatekeepers’ stated preferences and the trace evidence left in selection processes.

Falsifiable predictions and research designs

Ownership concentration moderates leader Dark Triad levels: Firms with more concentrated ownership or tighter control by a small set of principals will show higher Dark Triad estimates among CEOs and top management, controlling for industry, size, and country governance regime.

Threat salience increases selection for dark-trait profiles: When elite interests face salient threats (e.g., regulatory enforcement shocks, major labor mobilization, legitimacy crises), newly appointed leaders will show higher Machiavellianism/psychopathy indicators than matched appointments under low threat.

Gatekept vs. participatory selection mechanisms: Institutions using narrow gatekeeping (e.g., closed nominations, board appointment) will yield leaders with higher Dark Triad traits than comparable institutions using broader participatory selection (e.g., member primaries, cooperative governance).

Trace evidence of active preference: If active preference operates, gatekeeper communications and deliberation records (where accessible) will reference “toughness,” “hard decisions,” or willingness to “take heat” more frequently when selecting higher Dark Triad candidates, and experimental vignette studies with real gatekeepers will reveal conditional preferences under threat.

Mediation via conservation-relevant outputs: Associations between elite gatekeeping and conservation outcomes (e.g., reduced redistribution, regulatory avoidance, aggressive anti-challenger strategies) will be mediated by leader Dark Triad traits and moderated by institutional accountability.

Measurement challenges in elite samples

Directly measuring Dark Triad traits among elites raises validity threats: self-report measures are vulnerable to impression management, strategic responding, and selective participation. High-quality tests should triangulate across methods: multi-rater assessments (subordinates, peers), structured behavioral tasks, archival indicators (e.g., linguistic markers in speeches), and, where feasible, confidential survey designs that reduce reputational risk. Because the model hinges on selection, designs should also measure the pool of candidates and the gatekeeping criteria, not only the traits of incumbents.

Discussion: what the evidence supports, and what remains to be shown

Current evidence supports three component claims: (i) Dark Triad traits are elevated among leaders and tend to increase with leadership level, with stronger effects on emergence than effectiveness (8–12); (ii) these traits correlate with counterproductive behavior, and leadership outcomes are heterogeneous and moderated by context, trait combinations, and hierarchical level (5–7, 13, 14); and (iii) concentrated wealth and power possess institutional channels to shape leader selection and incentive environments (15–20).

What remains unproven as a general claim is strong causal intent: that the very wealthy and powerful systematically and consciously select Dark Triad leaders for the purpose of conserving wealth and power across settings. The most defensible scientific position is therefore conditional: elite-controlled selection environments can plausibly increase Dark Triad representation through measurable incentives and screening biases, and intentional preference is an additional, testable mechanism rather than an assumption.

Finally, Milgram and SPE traditions highlight a key boundary condition: systems and authority structures can produce compliance and harm even without elevated Dark Triad traits, while selection effects (including self-selection into “total situations”) can also be substantial (21–27). A rigorous research program should therefore model both trait sorting and situational engineering, and test when each dominates.

Conclusion

A truth-oriented synthesis suggests that Dark Triad traits are overrepresented among leaders, that these traits can support aggressive hierarchy-maintaining strategies, and that concentrated wealth has the means to shape selection environments. Together, these elements motivate an elite-aligned selection hypothesis that is plausible, nonconspiratorial in its minimal form, and empirically testable. Progress now depends on designs that directly observe gatekeeping, measure candidate pools, and use multi-method trait assessment to distinguish active preference from structural selection.

 

- Indeed, Discussion and Critique Welcome! -

 

 

References

1. Paulhus DL, Williams KM. The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. J Res Pers. 2002;36:556–563. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6.

2. Jones DN, Paulhus DL. Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment. 2014;21:28–41. doi:10.1177/1073191113514105.

3. Jonason PK, Webster GD. The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychol Assess. 2010;22:420–432. doi:10.1037/a0019265.

4. Spain SM, Harms P, LeBreton JM. The dark side of personality at work. J Organ Behav. 2014;35(Suppl 1):S41–S60. doi:10.1002/job.1894.

5. O’Boyle EH Jr, Forsyth DR, Banks GC, McDaniel MA. A meta-analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. J Appl Psychol. 2012;97:557–579. doi:10.1037/a0025679.

6. LeBreton JM, Shiverdecker LK, Grimaldi EM. The dark triad and workplace behavior. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2018;5:387–414. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104451.

7. Bueno-de la Fuente C, Núñez-Rodríguez S, de la Fuente-Anuncibay R, González-Bernal JJ. Relationship between leadership, personality, and the Dark Triad in workplace: A systematic review. Behav Sci (Basel). 2025;15(3):297. doi:10.3390/bs15030297.

8. Grijalva E, Harms PD, Newman DA, Gaddis BH, Fraley RC. Narcissism and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Pers Psychol. 2015;68(1):1–47. doi:10.1111/peps.12072.

9. Landay K, Harms PD, Credé M. Shall we serve the dark lords? A meta-analytic review of psychopathy and leadership. J Appl Psychol. 2019;104:183–196. doi:10.1037/apl0000357.

10. Diller SJ, Czibor A, Szabó Z, Restás P, Jonas E, Frey D. The positive connection between dark triad traits and leadership levels in self- and other-ratings. Leadership, Education, Personality: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2021;3(2):117–131. doi:10.1365/s42681-021-00025-6.

11. Spurk D, Keller AC, Hirschi A. Do bad guys get ahead or fall behind? Relationships of the Dark Triad of personality with objective and subjective career success. Soc Psychol Pers Sci. 2016;7:113–121. doi:10.1177/1948550615609735.

12. Lindley JK. Are there unexplained financial rewards for the snakes in suits? A labour market analysis of the Dark Triad of personality. Br J Ind Relat. 2018;56(4):770–797. doi:10.1111/bjir.12269.

13. Haar J, de Jong J. Is the dark triad always detrimental to firm performance? Testing different performance outcomes and the moderating effects of competitive rivalry. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1061698. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1061698.

14. Smith MB, Hill AD, Wallace JC, Recendes T, Judge TA. Upsides to dark and downsides to bright personality: A multidomain review and future research agenda. J Manag. 2018;44:191–217. doi:10.1177/0149206317733511.

15. Jensen MC, Meckling WH. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ. 1976;3:305–360. doi:10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X.

16. Fama EF, Jensen MC. Separation of ownership and control. J Law Econ. 1983;26:301–325.

17. Shleifer A, Vishny RW. A survey of corporate governance. J Finance. 1997;52:737–783. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04820.x.

18. Gilens M, Page BI. Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspect Polit. 2014;12:564–581. doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595.

19. Useem M. The Inner Circle: Large Corporations and the Rise of Business Political Activity in the U.S. and U.K. Oxford Univ Press; 1984.

20. Krcmaric D, Nelson SC, Roberts A. Billionaire politicians: A global perspective. Perspect Polit. 2024;22:357–371. doi:10.1017/S1537592723002062.

21. Milgram S. Behavioral study of obedience. J Abnorm Psychol. 1963;67:371–378. doi:10.1037/h0040525.

22. Burger JM. Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? Am Psychol. 2009;64(1):1–11. doi:10.1037/a0010932.

23. Reicher SD, Haslam SA, Smith JR. Working toward the experimenter: Reconceptualizing obedience within the Milgram paradigm as identification-based followership. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012;7(4):315–324. doi:10.1177/1745691612448482.

24. Haslam SA, Reicher SD. 50 years of “obedience to authority”: From blind conformity to engaged followership. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci. 2017;13:59–78. doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113710.

25. Haney C, Banks WC, Zimbardo PG. Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. Int J Criminol Penology. 1973;1:69–97.

26. Carnahan T, McFarland S. Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: Could participant self-selection have led to the cruelty? Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007;33(5):603–614. doi:10.1177/0146167206292689.

27. Haslam SA, Reicher SD, Van Bavel JJ. Rethinking the nature of cruelty: The role of identity leadership in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Am Psychol. 2019;74(7):809–822. doi:10.1037/amp0000443.

28. Zimbardo PG. The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House; 2007.