This study explored how “dark side” personality traits affect social network positioning. Thirty-one working adults completed the Hogan Developmental Survey (HDS), as well as a Social Network Analysis (SNA) survey measuring friendship, advice and innovation networks. SNA measures of
Indegree (popularity measure) and
Outdegree (expansiveness measure) were positively associated with Excitable and Colorful personality traits. In addition, Sceptical and Diligent personality traits were negatively associated with
Indegree and
Betweenness Centrality (network position importance measure). Implications and limitations were discussed.
Social Network Analysis “Dark Side Traits” Personality in SNA1. Introduction1.1. Social Network Analysis
There is a growing literature on what has been called the “dark-side” of personality (Furnham, 2015) . This usually refers to sub-clinical personality disorders such as Narcissism. The focus of much of this research is the extent to which these dark-side factors lead to management failure and derailment. This study looks at the relationship networks of people as a function of their dark-side profile.
Social network analysis (SNA) attempts to investigate relationships among interacting people. The unit level of analysis in network research consists of a collection of individuals and linkages among them (Wasserman & Faust, 2009) . Instead of focusing on individual’s attributes or the prediction power of those attributes, the social network perspective considers these attributes as a product of structural or relational processes. The task of network perspective is to understand how structural properties affect observed characteristics.
Social network analysis stems from Moreno’s (1953) research on sociometry― the measurement of interpersonal relations of small groups. The sociogram was devised as a method to investigate. It presents a picture, in which actors (individuals in a network) are depicted as points in a two-dimensional space, while the relationships between actors are portrayed as lines (or ties) linking corresponding points. Since then, the field of SNA has advanced to study interpersonal relations of individuals in various disciplines, such as anthropology (Schwei- zer, 1988) , sociology (Burt, 1987) , management (Kim, Choi, Yan, & Dooley, 2011) , communications (Contractor & Eisenberg, 1990) , and social psychology (Wrzus, Hänel, Wagner, & Neyer, 2013) .
1.2. Social Network Analysis and Personality
Social network research has primarily focused on the influence of observable individual attributes such as gender or explaining social networks through homophily phenomena (the tendency to associate with similar others). However, there is limited research exploring how individual psychological characteristics may be associated with personal network characteristics ( Kalish & Robins, 2006 ; Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001 ). This is mainly because social network research is mostly concerned with the structure and effects of relations between people, groups or organisations ( Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004 ; Tichy, Tushman, & Fombrun, 1979 ) rather than psychological dimensions of individuals.
Burt, Jannota, & Mahoney (1998) were probably the first to integrate personality research in SNA methodology. The authors investigated whether personality traits vary systematically with “structural holes”, which is defined as non- redundant information that is contained by two separate structures/“cliques”. The results indicated that people with the least constrained networks (entrepreneurial networks) had a tendency to seek advice from their colleagues (accuracy of information), perceived themselves to be in a position of authority (independence) and were able to create an aura of excitement (persuasion). The findings were in line with a study by Kalish & Robins (2006) . They showed that people who were more individualistic, more controlling, and more neurotic tended to occupy structural hole positions.
Klein, Lim, Saltz, & Mayer (2004) used the Big Five Factor Model (Goldberg, 1990) to predict SNA’s structures. Their study showed that highly educated individuals with low Neuroticism scores secured central positions in advice and friendship networks. However, Openness to Experience was negatively associated with friendship centrality and correlated positively with adversarial centrality. Similar findings were obtained in Kanfer & Tanaka’s (1993) study with students. They found that the more Extraverted, Agreeable, and Emotionally stable individuals were better connected in a network. More recently, Zhu, Woo, Porter, & Brzezinski (2013) demonstrated that Extraversion, Agreeableness and Openness scores positively predict SNA characteristics such as the network size, upper reachability and proportion of new contacts.
1.3. Dark Side Personality and Social Networks
There has been an increase interest in so-called “dark side personality”, which is defined as dysfunctional dispositions that influence one’s behaviour and thinking (Hogan & Hogan, 2001) . The Hogan Development Survey (HDS; Hogan & Hogan, 1997 ) is tailored to assess dark side personality traits at work. The HDS is a measurement to assess how individuals behave when they are stressed. It targets maladaptive personalities dealing with psychopathology and normal personality in occupational settings. It is based on the DSM-IV and aims to assess Cluster A, Cluster B and Cluster C disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) . Cluster A includes so-called odd disorders which are Paranoid, Schizoid and Schizotypal personality disorders. Cluster C can be categorized into anxious and fearful disorders which are described as Avoidant personality disorders. Hogan’s items that measure Cluster A disorders are Excitable, Sceptical, Cautious, Reserved and Leisurely. Bold, Mischievous, Colourful and Imaginative are items that measure Cluster B disorders and Diligent and Dutiful are aimed to measure Cluster C disorders.
The eleven themes get assessed by a 168-item survey ( Hogan & Hogan, 2001 ; Hogan & Hogan, 1997 ; Spain, Harms, & LeBreton, 2014 ). The items are loading on three factors which are MovingAway, Moving Against and Moving Towards Others. According to Horney (1950) the Moving Away factor is a coping mechanism to avoid feelings of anxiety by withdrawing oneself from social situations. Someone who is scoring high on the Moving Against factor has hostility and trust issues and tries to minimise them by having power and control. The third trend Moving Towards includes the need to please everyone and ignoring one’s own need (see Table 1).
Clifton, Turkheimer, & Oltmanns (2009) conducted a study with military recruits and found that measures of centrality and degree connectivity were positively correlated with Narcissistic and Histrionic Personality Disorders. In addition, they were negatively related to Avoidant, Schizoid and Schizotypal Personality Disorders. Studies indicated that scoring high on sub-clinical psychopathy dimensions was positively correlated with creativity, good strategic thinking and communication skills (Babiak, Neuman, & Hare, 2010) as well as entrepreneurship (Akhtar, Ahmetoglu, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013) .
1.4. The Current Study
The current study used SNA methodology to investigate the links between dark side personality traits and social networks. In order to find out which personality factors interact with social network characteristics, the study used a number of network dimensions, including friendship, advice and innovation networks.
Centrality measures indicate a person’s importance in a network and ability to control information flow. Therefore, Excitable (H1a), Mischievous (H1b) and Colourful (H1c) personality types would be located more centrally within the network, reflecting a desire to use interpersonal networks to influence/exploit others.
Description of axis 2 of DSM-IV and Horney’s theory
DSM
Horney
Hogan
Cluster A (odd disorders) ・ Paranoid personality disorder: characterised by a pattern of irrational suspicion and mistrust of others, interpreting motivations as malevolent ・ Schizoid personality disorder: lack of interest and detachment from social relationships, apathy and restricted emotional expression ・ Schizotypal personality disorder: a pattern of extreme discomfort interacting socially, distorted cognitions and perceptions
Moving Away from People ・ The need for self-sufficiency and independence; while most desire some autonomy, the neurotic may simply wish to discard other individuals entirely. ・ The need for perfection; while many are driven to perfect their lives in the form of well-being, the neurotic may display a fear of being slightly flawed. ・ Lastly, the need to restrict life practices to within narrow borders; to live as inconspicuous a life as possible.
Moving Away from People Excitable Moody and hard to please; intense but short-lived enthusiasm for people, projectsor things Sceptical: Cynical, distrustful and doubting others’ true intentions Cautious: Reluctant to take risks for fear of being rejected or negatively evaluated Reserved: Aloof, detached and uncommunicative; lacking interest in or awareness of the feelings of others Leisurely: Independent; ignoring people’s requests and becoming irritated or argumentative if they persist
Cluster B (dramatic, emotional or erratic disorders) ・ Antisocial personality disorder: a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, lack of empathy, bloated self-image, manipulative and impulsive behaviour ・ Borderline personality disorder: pervasive pattern of instability in relationships, self-image, identity, behaviour and affects often leading to self-harm and impulsivity ・ Histrionic personality disorder: pervasive pattern of attention-seeking behaviour and excessive emotions ・ Narcissistic personality disorder: a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy
Moving Against People ・ The need for power; the ability to bend wills and achieve control over others ? while most persons seek strength, the neurotic may be desperate for it ・ The need to exploit others; to get the better of them. To become manipulative, fostering the belief that people are there simply to be used ・ The need for social recognition; prestige and limelight ・ The need for personal admiration; for both inner and outer qualities―to be valued ・ The need for personal achievement; though virtually all persons wish to make achievements, as with No. 3, the neurotic may be desperate for achievement
Moving Against People Bold: Unusually self-confident; feelings of grandiosity and entitlement; over valuation of one’s capabilities Mischievous: Enjoying risk taking and testing the limits; needing excitement; manipulative, deceitful, cunning and exploitative Colourful: Expressive, animated and dramatic; wanting to be noticed and needing to be the centre of attention Imaginative Acting and thinking in creative and sometimes odd or unusual ways
Cluster C (anxious or fearful disorders) ・ Avoidant personality disorder: pervasive feelings of social inhibition and inadequacy, extreme sensitivity to negative evaluation ・ Dependent personality disorder: pervasive psychological need to be cared for by other people ・ Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (not the same as obsessive-compulsive disorder): characterised by rigid conformity to rules
Moving Toward People ・ The need for affection and approval; pleasing others and being liked by them ・ The need for a partner; one whom they can love and who will solve all problems
Moving Toward People Diligent: Meticulous, precise and perfectionistic, inflexible about rules and procedures; critical of others Dutiful: Eager to please and reliant on others for support and guidance; reluctant to take independent action or to go against popular opinion
Note: Reprinted from Backstabbers and bullies: How to cope with the dark side of people at work (pp. 133-135) by Furnham (2015) . Bloomsbury Publishing. Reprinted with permission.
Reserved (H2a) and Cautious (H2b) personality types would avoid the central positions in a network due to social inhibition and aloofness that is commonly associated with these personality types. It will also be predicted that Sceptical (H2c), Dutiful (H2d) and Diligent (H2e) would correlate negatively with SNA centrality measures.
2. Method2.1. Participants
Ethical committee approval was sought and received. Data were collected from a intact department of an engineers working in a firm in London. It is important in this research to study stable teams/groups of individuals who have worked together for some time. Participation in the study was voluntary. In total, 31 out of 40 participants (20 female) took part in the study (77% response rate). The mean age was 27.10 (SD = 15.89). Participants completed the measures as part of an internal employee consultancy project.
2.2. Measures2.2.1. Social Networks
The data were collected on a number of network ties: innovation, friendship relations, and advice. The study employed a roster method, in which the respondents were asked to place checks next to the names of the people that they considered important for each network. The presented names were generated from the department employees worked in. For example, participants were asked who were the people that they would consider going to in order to discuss an innovative idea (to generate an innovation network). Other network questions included: “Whom would you consider a personal friend?” (friendship network); “Whom might you go for help and advice?” (advice).
2.2.2. Hogan Development Survey (HDS; Hogan, & Hogan, 1997 )
Dark Side Personality was assessed which the HDS, which includes 168 items. The internal reliability of the measure has been reported to be good, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.50 to 0.80 (average of 0.64) and test-retest reliabilities over a three-month period ranging from 0.50 to 0.80 (average of 0.68) (Hogan & Hogan, 1997) .
2.3. Procedure
Participants completed all measures online. Each participant who agreed to take part in the survey received a personalised link to complete demographic (tenure, age and sex) and social network survey, which was generated by the Socilyzer platform (socilyzer.com). In the description to the study, participants were informed that the completion of the study would take around 20 minutes.
3. Results
The network data was analyzed with UCINET software (Borgatti, Everett & Freeman, 2002) which enabled to obtain indegree, outdegree and betweenness centrality SNA metrics.
Figure 1 visually represents the social network for the innovation question. Furthermore, it shows the HDS profiles of four network nodes or people in the team (two with the most central and two with the least central SNA characteristics). The HDS scores of for each of the eleven dark-side factors. The higher the score the more that derailer plays a part in that person’s interpersonal style at work. Scores 75 or over suggests that these are risk factors for those individuals.
HDS scores for different themes are expressed as percentiles (see Table 2).
A statistically significant positive correlation between Friendship Outdegree and Excitable factors, r = 0.36, p < 0.05 was observed, which confirms H1a. Those people who scored high on Excitable also had more out-coming ties towards other actors in the friendship network (or they were more likely to indicate that they have more friends). The results demonstrate that people who were associated with expansiveness SNA friendship network measure were found to be scoring higher on Excitable scale. A very similar effect was found when predicting advice network. There was a statistically significant positive correlation between Outdegree and Excitable measures, r = 0.43, p < 0.05 which means that
Visual representation of Social Network Analysis for innovation network and HDS profiles associated with the most and the least important network players as defined by Indegree and Betweenness SNA characteristics. Note: Different colours represent different cliques
ReferencesAkhtar, R., Ahmetoglu, G., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2013). Greed Is Good? Assessing the Relationship between Entrepreneurship and Subclinical Psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 420-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.013American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Text Revision). Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483325385.n7Babiak, P., Neumann, C. N., & Hare, R. D. (2010). Corporate Psychopathy: Talking the Walk. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, 174-193. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.925Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking Stock of Networks and Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 795-817. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159624Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.Burt, R. (1987). Social Contagion and Innovation, Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1287-1335. https://doi.org/10.1086/228667Burt, R., Janotta, J., & Mahoney, J. T. (1998). Personality Correlates of Structural Holes. Social Networks, 20, 63-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8733(97)00005-1Clifton, A., Turkheimer, E., & Oltmanns, F. (2009). Personality Disorder in Social Networks: Network Position as a Marker of Interpersonal Dysfunction. Social Networks, 31, 26-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2008.08.003Contractor, N. S., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1990). Communication Networks and Newmedia in Organizations. In J. Fulk, & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and Communication Technology (pp. 143-172). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Furnham, A. (2015). Backstabbers and Bullies: How to Cope with the Dark Side of People at Work. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Furnham, A., Trickey, G., & Hyde, G. (2012). Bright Aspects to Dark Side Traits: Dark Side Traits Associated with Work Success. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 908-913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.025Furnham, A., Crump, J., & Ritchie, W. (2013). What It Takes: Ability, Demographic, Bright and Dark Side Trait Correlates of Years to Promotion. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 952-956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.469Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An Alternative “Description of Personality”: The Big-Five Factor Structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan Development Survey Manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing Leadership: A View from the Dark Side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00162Horney, K. (1950). The Collected Works of Karen Horney: Self Analysis. Neurosis and Human Growth (Vol. 2). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.Kalish, Y., & Robins, G. (2006). Psychological Predispositions and Network Structure: The Relationship between Individual Predispositions, Structural Holes and Network Closure. Social Networks, 28, 56-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2005.04.004Kanfer, A., & Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Unraveling the Web of Personality Judgments: The Influence of Social Networks on Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality, 61, 711-738. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00788.xKim, Y., Choi, T. Y., Yan, T., & Dooley, K. (2011). Structural Investigation of Supply Networks: A Social Network Analysis Approach. Journal of Operations Management, 29, 194-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.11.001Klein, K., Lim, B., Saltz, J., & Mayer, D. (2004). How Do They Get There? Anexamination of the Antecedents of Centrality in Team Networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 952-963. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159634Malhotra, M., Grover, V., & Desilvio, M. (1996). Reengineering the New Product Development Process: A Framework for Innovation and Flexibility in High Technology Firms. Omega, 24, 425-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(96)00007-2Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001). The Social Networks of High and Low Self-Monitors: Implications for Workplace Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 121-146. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667127Moreno, J. (1953) Who Shall Survive? Foundations of Sociometry, Group Psychotherapy and Sociodrama. Beacon, NY: Beacon House.Nicoletti, G., & Scarpetta, S. (2003) Regulation, Productivity and Growth: OECD Evidence. Economic Policy, 18, 9-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0327.00102Schweizer, T. (1988). Detecting Positions in Networks: A Formal Analysis of Loose Social Structure in Rural Java. American Anthropologist, 90, 944-951. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1988.90.4.02a00130Spain, S. M., Harms, P., & LeBreton, J. M. (2014). The Dark Side of Personality at Work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, S41-S60. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1894Tichy N., Tushman M., & Fombrun C. ,et al. (1979). Social Network Analysis for Organizations Academy of Management Review 4, 507-519.Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (2009). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wrzus, C., Hanel, M., Wagner, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2013). Social Network Changes and Life Events across the Life Span: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028601Zhu, X., Woo, S., Porter, C., & Brzezinski, M. (2013). Pathways to Happiness: From Personality to Social Networks and Perceived Support. Social Networks, 35, 382-393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.04.005Zibarras, L. D., Port, R. L., & Woods, S. A. (2008). Innovation and the “Dark Side” of Personality: Dysfunctional Traits and Their Relation to Self-Reported Innovative Characteristics. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 201-215. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01295.x