doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12296 the dark triad and nascent … · 2016-10-28 · concern for long-term...

The Dark Triad and Nascent Entrepreneurship: AnExamination of Unproductive versus ProductiveEntrepreneurial Motivesby Keith M. Hmieleski and Daniel A. Lerner

This study examined relationships of the dark triad personality characteristics (i.e., narcissism,psychopathy, and Machiavellianism) with entrepreneurial intentions and motives. Results fromsamples of business undergraduates (N 5 508) and MBA students (N 5 234) found narcissism tobe positively related to entrepreneurial intentions. In addition, results from subgroups of businessundergraduates and MBA students high in entrepreneurial intentions (i.e., early-stage nascententrepreneurs) indicated differences in motives for engaging in the startup process. Specifically,we found all facets of the dark triad to be positively associated with unproductive entrepreneurialmotives, and observed differential associations of the dark triad characteristics with productiveentrepreneurial motives.

IntroductionNew venture creation is typically thought

to be a positive or even heroic endeavor(Anderson and Warren 2011; Malach-Pines et al.2005). This view is logical when consideringthat startups often provide employment, innova-tive products/services, and tax revenues thathelp to stabilize, grow, and revitalize economies(Van Praag and Versloot 2007). Perhaps partlyfor these reasons, the literature considering whyindividuals intend to become entrepreneurs hasfocused primarily on the “good in people”—such as positive psychological characteristics(e.g., optimism, dispositional positive affect,and generalized self-efficacy; Zhao, Seibert, andLumpkin 2010) and virtuous motives (e.g., adesire to engage in meaningful work anddeliver products/services that address importantindividual and societal problems; Cooper and

Artz 1995) as drivers of entry into entrepreneur-ship within developed economies.

Only recently has there begun to build a con-certed movement toward exploring the darkersides of entrepreneurship (Baron, Zhao, andMiao 2015; DeNisi 2015; Klotz and Neubaum2016; Shepherd, Patzelt, and Baron 2013;Webb et al. 2009). The current study builds onthis movement by asking: “Are there dark psy-chological characteristics and unproductivemotives (e.g., a desire to appropriate value)that drive persons’ intentions to enter intoentrepreneurship?” This is an important ques-tion because organizations founded on thebasis of such drivers are likely to producecounterproductive workplace dynamics andnegative long-term societal and economic effects(Kets de Vries 1985; Lewin and Stephens 1994).Thus, with respect to theory, policy, and prac-tice, it is arguably as important to identify

Keith M. Hmieleski is Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship at the Neeley School of Business, Texas Chris-tian University.

Daniel A. Lerner is Assistant Professor at Deusto Business School, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain, andVisiting Professor at Universidad de Desarrollo, Chile.

Address correspondence to: K. M. Hmieleski, Department of Management, Entrepreneurship and Leader-ship, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129. E-mail: [email protected].

HMIELESKI AND LERNER 7

Journal of Small Business Management 2016 54(S1), pp. 7–32

doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12296

individual characteristics relating to unproduc-tive entrepreneurship (which appropriates eco-nomic and societal value) as it is to uncoverantecedents of productive entrepreneurship(which generates economic and societal value).1

Our research question is examined using atwo-step process. First, we consider the relation-ship of the dark triad (i.e., a collection of threemalevolent and ego-centric personality charac-teristics: narcissism, psychopathy, and Machia-vellianism; Jonason and Webster 2010) withindividuals’ entrepreneurial intentions. Next,within our primary samples, we then focus onthose individuals high in entrepreneurial inten-tions (i.e., persons who are actively preparing tolaunch a new venture, and thereby qualifying asearly-stage nascent entrepreneurs; Reynolds andWhite 1997) in order to examine the relation-ship of the dark triad with individuals’ motivesfor starting a new business. In other words, forthose who have begun the initial stages of start-ing a new business, we consider “why” they aredoing so—what are their underling motives forengaging in the entrepreneurial process?

The findings are intended to make two pri-mary contributions. First, the results are expectedto shed light on the dark triad as a previouslyunder-examined set of personality characteristicswithin the entrepreneurship literature—ones thatare not only relevant for vocational and organiza-tional behavior of existing firms (O’Boyle et al.2012), but that also may have effects on theintentions of individuals to start new ventures(Kets de Vries 1996). The dark triad has becomethe leading paradigm for the study of dark per-sonality traits within the fields of psychology(Adrian, Richards, and Paulhus 2013) and busi-ness management research (Smith, Wallace, andJordan 2016). Moreover, entrepreneurship schol-ars have recently pointed to the need forresearch on dark personality characteristics andhow they relate to entrepreneurial entry and per-formance (DeNisi 2015; Klotz and Neubaum2016; Shepherd 2015). Even though a dark sideto the personality of entrepreneurs has long been

suggested and speculated about (e.g., Kets deVries 1985), little empirical research has beenconducted to investigate such dispositions amongthose with entrepreneurial inclinations. This typeof research is needed in order to capture a morecomplete and balanced view of would-be entre-preneurs’ personality characteristics and howthey relate to both unproductive and productiveentrepreneurial motives.

Second, responding to recent calls for thestudy of motives underlying nascent venturing(e.g., Carsrud and Br€annback 2011), the resultsare expected to reveal meaningful differencesregarding why individuals engage in the startupprocess. The literature on individual differencecharacteristics relating to entry into entrepre-neurship has largely assumed positive underly-ing motives (Zhao, Seibert, and Lumpkin 2010),and that the creation of new ventures is inher-ently beneficial to society (Baron 2015). Not-withstanding Baumol’s (1990) theoreticalconsideration of institutional factors thatencourage unproductive versus productiveentrepreneurship, research has yet to examinedifferences in individual-level factors leading tounproductive (i.e., value-appropriating) versusproductive (i.e., value-creating) orientations toentrepreneurship. Thus, a large gap exists in theliterature regarding why within a particularinstitutional context (especially one conduciveto productive entrepreneurship), some entrepre-neurial individuals would be motivated to pur-sue unproductive versus productive ventureactivity (Shepherd 2015). This issue is of funda-mental importance to the field, as value creationhas become an elemental component in mostconceptualizations of entrepreneurship (Bruyatand Julien 2001).

Theoretical Developmentand HypothesesTheoretical Underpinnings of the DarkTriad

The dark triad is comprised of three malevo-lent and ego-centric personality characteristics:

1Consistent with general economics, our discussion of value appropriation versus value creation is based onwhether value is extracted or generated. An example of value appropriation can be seen with patent trolls (i.e., individ-uals or companies that pursue opportunistic litigation to capture existing value, rather than generating new value. Ourarguments do not suggest that profit-motive is unproductive; on the contrary, unprofitable firms fail, thereby failing tocreate or appropriate value. In line with this point, our argument is not inconsistent with the potential of self-interest tobenefit other parties at the heart of neoclassical economics. In essence, we simply suggest that the higher an individualis in the dark triad (i.e., psychological characteristics characterized by malevolent self-interest), the more the individu-al’s motives for venturing will be to appropriate, rather than generate, value.

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT8

narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism.2

These characteristics are distinguishable, butoverlap with respect to an underlying propen-sity for self-serving, callous, and exploitativebehavior (Jonason and Webster 2010). Personshigh in the dark triad tend to be achievement-oriented and skilled at accumulating power andextracting resources from their environment(Jonason, Li, and Teicher 2010; Jones and Fig-ueredo 2013). They generally have a competi-tive nature and lack altruistic or prosocial ideals.The dark triad has been referred to as the“James Bond” personality-type because individ-uals high in its facets tend to be more confident,extraverted, and agentic than others when oper-ating in challenging and uncertain situations(Jonason et al. 2009). For these reasons, it is notsurprising that research has found individualshigh in dark triad characteristics to be com-monly found, and arguably overrepresented, inleadership positions, such as among politiciansand CEOs (Chatterjee and Hambrick 2007; Del-uga 2001; Furtner, Rauthmann, and Sachse2011; Lewin and Stephens 1994; O’Reilly et al.2014). It similarly reasons that individuals enter-ing entrepreneurship—a vocation that requireshigh levels of self-confidence, leadership andagentic behavior, and involves a high degree ofuncertainty—may also be disproportionatelyhigh in the dark triad (Mathieu and St-Jean2013).

To evaluate the extent to which dark triadpersonality characteristics relate to entry intoentrepreneurship and the potential underlyingmotives for engaging in this activity, we drawfrom two complementary theories: life historytheory and social exchange theory. Life historytheory is a middle-range theory proposing thatindividuals select behavioral strategies inaccordance with the demands of their environ-ment, so as to maximize fitness and the likeli-hood of survival (Buss 2009; Roff 2001).According to this theory, when environmentalconditions are brutish and the future is highlyuncertain, a fast-life strategy in which individu-als focus on immediate needs and short-termrelationships is the most effective behavioral ori-entation. In contrast, under less harsh environ-mental conditions and when the future is

somewhat more predictable, a dedicated-lifestrategy in which individuals focus on long-termneeds and relationships is generally most effec-tive. Individuals high in the dark triad areknown to adopt a fast-life strategy toward rela-tionships (Carter et al. 2015), and, more gener-ally, a short-term view of the world thatinfluences how they regulate their behavior andallocate resources (Jonason et al. 2012).

The adoption of a fast-life approach is associ-ated with low behavioral inhibition and a lack ofconcern for long-term consequences (Sherman,Figueredo, and Funder 2013). To the extent per-sons high in the dark triad personality character-istics regulate their behavior through a fast-lifeapproach, they may take on risky endeavorssuch as new venture creation and do so withoutrequisite experience, connections, or resources(Jonason, Koenig, and Tost 2010). Their confi-dence, lack of fear, preference for agenticendeavors, disdain for authority and the statusquo, and general comfort operating in unstruc-tured and dynamic environments would presum-ably make entrepreneurship an attractiveoccupational choice for such persons (Jonason,Li, and Teicher 2010). Moreover, it should bepointed out that even though a fast-life approachis generally viewed as a counterproductive modeof self-regulation in modern society, it mayprove to be an adaptive and even superior strat-egy in certain situations, particularly in the short-term (Jonason, Koenig, and Tost 2010).

A fast-life strategy has important implicationsfor social exchange, in terms of individuals’ per-ception of exchange relationships and socialexchange behavior. Social exchange theory sug-gests that the value of a relationship is equal toits benefits minus the costs (Cook and Rice2003). Social exchange is particularly relevant indomains where markets do not exist or are atbest incomplete, such as in interpersonal rela-tionships and in nascent organizing. Socialexchange differs from economic exchange inthat contracts are not explicit or subject to ruleof law, instead it rests upon the expectation ofreciprocity over time. According to socialexchange theory, individuals foster relationshipsand engage in reciprocal transactions with per-sons whom they perceive as offering value.

2Consistent with the personality literature and with other organizational research involving normal (non-clinical) populations (e.g., Chatterjee and Hambrick 2007; Jonason and Webster 2010), no suggestion or assump-tion is made as to whether individuals high in the continuous personality constructs of narcissism, psychopathy,or Machiavellianism would be so high as to qualify for clinical disorders/diagnoses.


Thus, in general, social exchange theory pre-dicts that people are more likely to help thosewho they expect to receive reciprocal benefitfrom in the future. While on the surface suchreasoning may appear consistent with the ego-centricity associated with the dark triad, it typi-cally is not. Reciprocal exchange is not antici-pated by persons high in the dark triad; instead,such individuals view relationship value asbeing maximized through interactions of takingwithout giving (O’Boyle et al. 2012). Moreover,since individuals high in the dark triad will shirkreciprocity if given the opportunity, such per-sons expect others to do the same. Thus, indi-viduals high in the dark triad do not nurturelong-term relationships, instead they developmany superficial short-term relationships—extracting resources from one relationship andquickly moving on once it has served them.3 Inso doing, such individuals tend to advancethrough life largely based on the efforts andresources of others (Jones 2014).

Even though a fast-life approach is consistentwith each of the dark triad personality charac-teristics, having similar implications for socialexchange, there are important differences withrespect to how self-regulatory behavior is mani-fest through each individual characteristic. Per-sons high in narcissism possess an excessiveneed for adoration that manifests in egotism,vanity, pride, and selfishness (Twenge et al.2008). Their sense of superiority and entitle-ment leads them to believe that others shouldgive to them without expectation of receivinganything in return (Hotchkiss 2003). Individualshigh in psychopathy are emotionally callous(Decuyper et al. 2009). This allows them tocoldly, and sometimes aggressively, take with-out giving in return (Ermer and Kiehl 2010).People high in Machiavellianism are character-ized by duplicity—believing that the ends justifythe means, and placing a particularly high prior-ity on power, money, and competition (Zettlerand Solga 2013). Taking from others withoutreciprocation is viewed by such persons asacceptable (and expected) when so doing fur-thers progress toward the achievement of theirgoals (Gunnthorsdottir, McCabe, and Smith2002).

In the following section we elaborate on thislogic, explicated through life history theory, todevelop hypotheses regarding the relationshipof the dark triad with intentions to enter intoentrepreneurship. We then make linkages withsocial exchange theory to hypothesize aboutwhy the motives underlying such intentions arelikely to be based on relatively unproductive,rather than productive, orientations towardentrepreneurship.

The Dark Triad and EntrepreneurialEntry

The adoption of a fast-life approach implies ashort-term orientation in which individualschoose to take on bold tasks without full consid-eration of the effort, experience, and resourcesneeded to produce lasting success (Sherman,Figueredo, and Funder 2013). Since personswho are high in the dark triad tend to regulatetheir behavior through a fast-life approach, theymay choose to take on risky endeavors such asnew venture creation (Jonason, Koenig, andTost 2010). Drawing from this perspective andbased on life history theory, we now consider indetail how each facet of the dark triad is likelyto be associated with entrepreneurial intentions.

Narcissism. Individuals who are high in nar-cissism are self-centered and continually seekthe attention and admiration of others (Twengeet al. 2008). They also tend to be charismatic,and are skilled at acquiring resources and get-ting others to adopt their plans (O’Reilly et al.2014). In addition, they are known to engage ingrandiose thinking and expect others to adopttheir world view (Hotchkiss 2003). In relation tonascent entrepreneurship, by launching a ven-ture, individuals high in narcissism can live thefast-life by immediately becoming leader andCEO—bypassing the need to start below othersand to patiently climb the corporate ladder.Moreover, entrepreneurship has become anadmired and even sexy vocational choice(Magister 2013)—befitting the self-presumedgreatness of narcissistic individuals. Finally,research has found persons high in narcissismto have a bias toward risk-taking, being proneto gambling (Jones 2013) and making riskyfinancial investments (Foster et al. 2011)—

3This does not preclude individuals high in Machiavellianism from superficially investing in relationships ordeferring immediate value extraction, so as to further their manipulation of others (e.g., as pawns and patrons).Similarly, those high in narcissism and psychopathy may superficially maintain a relationship while it serves theirego-centric interests of admiration, dominance, or parasitic lifestyle.


characteristics associated with persons engagedin nascent venturing and with following a fast-life strategy (Buss 2009). For these reasons, it isnot surprising that narcissism has been identi-fied in recent research as being positivelyrelated to possessing entrepreneurial intentions(Mathieu and St-Jean 2013).

Psychopathy. Persons high in psychopathylack normal levels of emotional arousal.4 Giventheir relatively limited ability to experience allbut the most superficial and primal emotions,combined with cynicism, they are incapable ofexperiencing affective empathy. This, however,does not preclude them from understandingwhat drives people (i.e., cognitive empathy),and makes them well suited to take advantageof others (Jonason and Krause 2013). Individu-als who are high in psychopathy excel in highlystressful and uncertain situations, being able tofocus and perform well under conditions inwhich others persons typically breakdown (Dut-ton 2012). Moreover, people high in psychopa-thy are often attracted toward sensation-seekingactivities and get bored easily (Hunt et al. 2005),thus fueling a fast-life behavioral orientation(Jonason, Koenig, and Tost 2010; Jonason, Li,and Teicher 2010). In addition, they abhorsocial norms and enjoy going against the statusquo (Mathieu et al. 2013). In relation to nascententrepreneurship, by starting a business, per-sons high in psychopathy can avoid having toreport to others and needing to adhere to thesocial norms that exist within a corporate setting(Rindova, Barry, and Ketchen 2009). They caninstead shape the culture and norms for theirstartup without undergoing the scrutiny andmonitoring faced by those entering an estab-lished organization as an employee (Staw 1991).Entrepreneurship also offers the opportunity tohit it big, aligning with their “all or nothing”sensation-seeking desires that characterize thefast-life. Moreover, the wide range of activitiesin which entrepreneurs must take on wouldlikely prevent persons who are high in psychop-athy from getting bored (cf. Nicolaou et al.2011). In addition, their ability to read peoplecould help them to identify opportunities fornew products/services or stakeholders to exploit

(Humphrey 2013). Finally, their lack of fear andrelative insensitivity to loss/punishment standsto reduce or eliminate any venturing inhibitionrelated to high startup mortality or general fearof failure (Morgan and Sisak 2016); thus,psychopathy may facilitate entry into entrepre-neurship—even for those without sufficientpreparation or experience.

Machiavellianism. People who are high inMachiavellianism are driven by the perspectivethat the ends justify the means and have a strongneed for money, power and competition (Zettlerand Solga 2013). They are known for their desireto win at the expense of others (Buckels, Jones,and Paulhus 2013). Moreover, they have nocompunction about engaging in socially deviantbehaviors (e.g., lying, stealing, and cheating) inorder to win, and are experts at masking theirtrue objectives (Cot�e et al. 2011). Such personsalso discount future consequences and have aneed for immediate gratification—characteristicsclosely linked with the fast-life (Jonason andTost 2010). In relation to nascent entrepreneur-ship, for such persons venturing may serve as avehicle to aggressively compete, and if success-ful, quickly acquire inordinate amounts ofwealth and power. Whereas excessive tenacityand competitiveness are often viewed as coun-terproductive among workers within traditionalorganizational setting (Lu, Tjosvold, and Shi2010), such characteristics are more commonlyrevered among entrepreneurs and considerednecessary in order to overcome high mortalityodds and to win business away from incumbentfirms (Robinson 2014). Further, the brutish con-ditions that startups often face and the potentialbenefits that new ventures provide (e.g., jobs,tax revenues) can be used by Machiavellianentrepreneurs to obfuscate or justify question-able competitive tactics and behaviors that char-acterize a short-term view and fast-life approach.

In sum, consistent with general suggestionsregarding the presence of pathological charac-teristics and tendencies among entrepreneurs(Kets de Vries 1985, 1996; Lerner 2016; Verheulet al. 2016), we suggest that each facet of thedark triad may yield an attraction towardlaunching a new venture, driven at least in part

4We refer to psychopathy as per the dark triad and personality literature (e.g., Jonason and Webster 2010;Paulhus and Williams 2002). This largely overlaps with psychopathy as well as psychopaths in the forensic andclinical literatures (e.g., Hare 1991; Hare and Neumann 2006). Yet as psychopathy within the dark triad of person-ality is more parsimonious and germane to non-clinical populations, use of the term here should not be conflatedwith clinical models of psychopathy.


by a desire to live the fast-life. We thereforeoffer our first hypothesis:

H1. Individuals’ levels of narcissism (H1a), psy-chopathy (H1b), and Machiavellianism (H1c)will be positively associated with their inten-tions to start a new venture.

The Dark Triad and Unproductive versusProductive Entrepreneurial Motives

In many respects entrepreneurship can beseen as a series of social and economicexchanges between parties who mutually expectto benefit as result of transacting with oneanother (e.g., Goss 2008). For example, foundershire employees and offer financial and other ben-efits in exchange for expertise and labor. In addi-tion, they sell products/services to customerswho expect to receive value from interactionsand transactions that are made in good faith. Pro-ductive relationships exist when exchangeincreases value for those involved, whereasunproductive relationships exist when one partyappropriates value from others (Cook and Rice2003). Many entrepreneurs begin new venturesfor productive reasons, desiring to deliver prod-ucts and services that generate value beyond justfor the entrepreneur (Cooper and Artz 1995). Yetother entrepreneurs launch new ventures toengage in rent-seeking or value-extracting behav-ior—appropriating existing value, externalizingcosts, and potentially reducing others’ overallwelfare in the process (Baumol 1990). Buildingfrom social exchange theory, we now argue whythe dark triad personality characteristics are likelyto be positively linked with unproductive entre-preneurial motives and negatively associatedwith productive entrepreneurial motives.

Narcissism. Individuals who are high in nar-cissism feel that they are superior and tooimportant to be bothered by others’ needs(Twenge et al. 2008). Their self-presumed great-ness leads them to believe that people shouldadmire and serve them without expectation ofreciprocation. As such, they see no moraldilemma in engaging in rent-seeking behaviorthat involves taking without giving in return(i.e., value appropriation) (Brown et al. 2010).Narcissistic entrepreneurs, much like narcissisticCEOs, are apt to view their business as a directreflection of their own greatness (Chatterjee andHambrick 2007). To this end, they are unlikelyto want their venture to be viewed by others asbeing unscrupulous, but behind closed doors

would be unfazed in doing whatever it takes tobe successful (e.g., so that they receive whatthey are, in their own mind, entitled to). More-over, their charisma and social adeptness facili-tate shirking from reciprocation in socialexchange relationships, enhancing their poten-tial to engage in rent-seeking and personal valueappropriation via their firm.

Psychopathy. Persons high in psychopathyare callous, insensitive to the needs of others,and lack remorse (Jonason and Krause 2013).These individuals consider life from the perspec-tive of every man for himself, viewing people aseither prey or fellow predators (Babiak andHare 2006). They therefore do not have anyproblem engaging in rent-seeking behavior andexternalizing all costs. Such behavior would infact be considered the norm for persons high inpsychopathy (Dutton 2012). In their minds, onlyfools care about the needs of others; dominanceand coercion are the way to achieve cooperationand for an individual to maximize his/her gains.Not surprisingly, studies of individuals high inpsychopathy have found that such personschoose to gamble with others’ money if theopportunity presents itself (Jones 2013). More-over, the ability of persons who are high in psy-chopathy to pick out individuals who arevulnerable or easily dominated would allowthem to identify stakeholders whom they cantake advantage of (e.g., employees, customers,suppliers) while offering little in return (Wilson,Demetrioff, and Porter 2008). In sum, we expectthat the entrepreneurial motives of individualshigh in psychopathy will be positively orientedtoward appropriating value for themselves, andnegatively oriented toward creating value morebroadly for others.

Machiavellianism. People who are high inMachiavellianism tend to be cynical and do notbelieve that individuals or societies care abouttheir well-being (Zettler and Solga 2013). As aresult, they tend to have little concern for thewell-being of others. In addition, they fail toreciprocate in social exchanges once the otherparty has been used and is no longer convenientto their own goals, and are motivated to win atall costs (Cot�e et al. 2011). Judgment anddecision-making for individuals high in Machia-vellianism is weighted in favor of maximizingpersonal gain and short-term profits, with littlethought given to broader and/or long-termrepercussions (Sherman, Figueredo, and Funder2013). Therefore, in the startup context, facedwith entrepreneurial uncertainty, such persons


are unlikely to be motivated to invest resourcesin productive entrepreneurial strategies thatmight only generate long-term value; they areinstead likely to be motivated to pursue unpro-ductive entrepreneurial strategies that appropri-ate value in the present or near future. As long-term resource investments are uncertain, individ-uals high in Machiavellianism can benefit withgreater certainty by focusing on short-term wins(Jonason, Koenig, and Tost 2010). This is likelyto result in an appropriative rent-seeking orienta-tion in which relationships involve taking asmuch as possible while minimizing reciproca-tion. Such self-interest with guile could manifestin various ways, including: taking shortcuts onproduct quality, overcharging for services, takingadvantage of employees, or use of a litigatorycompetitive strategy. We therefore anticipate thatMachiavellian nascent entrepreneurs will be highin unproductive entrepreneurial motives and lowin productive entrepreneurial motives.

Taken together we have argued that, drivenby a fast-life approach, individuals high in darktriad personality characteristics who intend tobecome firm founders, will be motivated to useventuring as a pathway to by-in-large appropri-ate value rather than create it (i.e., engage inexchange relationships with a focus on takingand externalizing). In addition, we have sug-gested that there may be subtle differencesregarding how each facet of the dark triadrelates to motives for venturing. Overall, weposit that the dark triad personality characteris-tics are each positively associated with unpro-ductive entrepreneurial motives and negativelyassociated with productive motives. Specifically,we offer the following hypotheses:

H2. Individuals’ levels of narcissism (H2a), psy-chopathy (H2b), and Machiavellianism (H2c)will be positively associated with their level ofunproductive entrepreneurial motives.

H3. Individuals’ levels of narcissism (H3a), psy-chopathy (H3b), and Machiavellianism (H3c)will be negatively associated with their level ofproductive entrepreneurial motives.

MethodData Collection Procedures and Sample

In order to assess the relationship of the darktriad with entrepreneurial intentions, it would

not be logical to sample full-time entrepreneurs.Instead, a business-oriented population withvariance in entrepreneurial intentions is needed.Accordingly, college business students wereselected as the sample population for the cur-rent research. Given concerns about the use ofstudents as proxies for other populations, it isimportant to underscore the following points.First, business students as a whole do notbroadly proxy nascent entrepreneurs; ratherthey offer a general business-oriented popula-tion from which to attempt to distinguishbetween those who are high versus low inentrepreneurial intentions. Thus, for researchquestions seeking to predict entrepreneurialintentions, sampling business students is appro-priate (Krueger 1993). It is also worth notingthat unlike more heterogeneous full-time work-ers with existing careers (e.g., persons whohave already become employees or entrepre-neurs), business students offer a population lesssubject to omitted variable bias and endogeneitythreats. Additionally, many individuals begin theentrepreneurial process while a student, andnearly all business students are on the verge ofentering the full-time workforce as (co)found-ers, employees of a startup firm, or employeesof existing organizations. Finally, to addressconcerns relating to the generalizability ofundergraduate business student populations toolder and more experienced adult populations,we used samples of both business undergradu-ates and MBA students (Hmieleski and Corbett2006).

Two primary data collections (N 5 508 andN 5 234) were conducted for the currentresearch. In addition, a supplementary data col-lection (N 5 130) was performed in order toexamine the validity and temporal stability of anumber of the study’s measures. Participants inboth primary data collections completed a sur-vey instrument containing the measuresdescribed below, as well as several demo-graphic items. The first primary data collection(Sample 1) was with undergraduate businessstudents, obtained from subject pools at twobusiness schools in the United States. Subjectswere not graded on their participation and hadno other incentive to respond in any particularway. These subjects simply received one partici-pation point for completing the survey, with allresponses being anonymous. The sample wascomprised of 508 business undergraduates, withan average age of 21.5 (Standard Deviation[S.D.] 5 3.22) and slightly more males (n 5 296)


than females (n 5 212). Eighty-one percent ofparticipants identified as Caucasian (n 5 411),14 percent had started a venture (n 5 71), 30percent had worked for a startup (n 5 150), and36 percent had taken a course in entrepreneur-ship (n 5 181).

The second primary data collection (Sample2) consisted of MBA students recruited throughcourses they were attending at U.S. businessschools. The MBA sample did not receive partic-ipation points or other incentive for completingthe survey. It was composed of 234 MBA stu-dents, with an average age of 29.6 (S.D. 5 6.61)and approximately twice as many males(n 5 160) than females (n 5 74). Seventy-fourpercent of participants identified as Caucasian(n 5 173), 23 percent had started a venture(n 5 53), 24 percent had worked for a startup(n 5 55), and 23 percent had taken a course inentrepreneurship (n 5 53).

A supplemental data collection was con-ducted in order to evaluate validity for the meas-ures of entrepreneurial motives, including thetest-retest reliabilities (temporal stability) of thefocal study measures. The protocol used for thissample was similar to the others. However,these participants were surveyed twice, at time1 (t1) and then four weeks later at time 2 (t2). Inorder to link a particular subject’s test-retestresponses, a four-digit identification numberwas used (matching t1 to t2). This supplementalsample was composed of 130 business under-graduates at t1, with 118 of those participantsalso completing t2. These participants had anaverage age of 21.0 (S.D. 5 1.85), and includedslightly more males (nt1 5 80; nt2 5 72) thanfemales (nt1 5 50; nt2 5 46). The majority of par-ticipants identified as Caucasian (nt1 5 110;nt2 5 100), 13 percent had started a venture(nt1 5 17; nt2 5 15), 29 percent had worked fora startup (nt1 5 38; nt2 5 34), and approximately30 percent had taken a course in entrepreneur-ship (nt1 5 42; nt2 5 34).

MeasuresUnless otherwise noted, all measures were

rated on a five-point Likert-type response scale,with responses ranging from 1 (strongly dis-agree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Dark Triad. The dark triad was examinedusing a 12-item measure developed and validatedby Jonason and Webster (2010). It includes 4items each for narcissism (example item: “I tendto want others to admire me”), psychopathy(example item: “I tend to lack remorse”) and

Machiavellianism (example item: “I tend tomanipulate others to get my way”). Scores wereaveraged for each construct, with higher scoresreflecting greater levels of narcissism, psychopa-thy and Machiavellianism, respectively.

In alignment with theory and previous empir-ical evidence of each facet being relatively stableacross time and situation (i.e., trait-like), Jonasonand Webster (2010) found the test–retest correla-tion over a three-week period to range from0.76 to 0.87 for narcissism, psychopathy, andMachiavellianism. Results from our supplemen-tary sample found the measure to produce simi-lar temporal stability, with test-retest correlationsover a four-week period ranging from 0.69 to0.84 for narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavel-lianism. The internal consistency of the measurewas found to be acceptable in both of our pri-mary data collections, with Cronbach’s coeffi-cient alpha (a) scores of 0.76 and 0.73 fornarcissism, 0.71 and 0.73 for psychopathy, and0.82 and 0.79 for Machiavellianism for the pri-mary samples of business undergraduates andMBAs, respectively.

Entrepreneurial Intentions. This constructwas examined using a 5-item measure developedby Chen, Greene, and Crick (1998). Exampleitems include “I have begun planning for startingmy own business,” and “I am going to set up myown business in the near future.” Responses toitems were averaged, such that higher scoresrepresent greater levels of entrepreneurial inten-tions. Results from the supplementary samplefound the measure to produce good temporalstability, with a test–retest correlation of 0.88over a four-week period. The measure producedhigh levels of internal consistency, withCronbach’s coefficient alpha (a) scores of 0.92and 0.93 for the primary samples of businessundergraduates and MBAs, respectively.

Entrepreneurial Motives. Measures weredeveloped by the authors based on the generaltheoretical consideration of unproductive andproductive entrepreneurship made by Baumol(1990) and input from other entrepreneurshipscholars. Consistent with prior individual-levelresearch and recent calls to examine individualentrepreneurial motives (Carsrud andBr€annback 2011), we focused on individuals’motivation to pursue both unproductive (i.e.value-appropriating) and productive (i.e., value-creating) entrepreneurial activities. The meas-ures consist of five items for unproductiveentrepreneurial motives and five items for pro-ductive entrepreneurial motives. The items and


results of principal components confirmatoryfactor analysis using Varimax rotation areincluded in Appendix. Item responses wereaveraged, such that higher scores representgreater levels of unproductive and productiveentrepreneurial motives, respectively. Resultsfrom our supplementary sample found themeasures to produce reasonable temporal stabil-ity, with test-retest correlations over a four-weekperiod of 0.75 for each type of entrepreneurialmotive. The measures also showed reasonablelevels of internal consistency, with Cronbach’scoefficient alpha (a) scores of 0.76 and 0.75 forunproductive entrepreneurial motives, and 0.79and 0.84 for productive entrepreneurial motives,in the primary samples of business undergradu-ates and MBAs, respectively. The measures alsoappeared to show reasonable convergent anddiscriminate validity.5

Control Variables. Several demographic con-trol variables were used in the current research.These included the age, and a series of dummyvariables (yes5 1) indicating if a subject wasmale, Caucasian, married, had children, had pre-viously taken an entrepreneurship course, andwas enrolled at a private university. Age wasincluded because older students generally havemore work experience and broader connectionsthat could afford them a better position to

consider starting a new business (Kautonen, Gel-deren and Fink 2015). Males have historicallybeen found to be more likely to start businessesthan females (Gupta, Turban, and Bhawe 2008;Zhao, Seibert, and Hills 2005). Ethnic minoritiestend to have a high rate of startup intentionsdue to perceptions of having a decreased oppor-tunity to find employment and make careeradvancements through traditional employmentroutes (Fairlie 2004). Individuals who are mar-ried and who have children are likely to havelower entrepreneurial intentions due to the riskinvolved in the startup process (Schiller andCrewson 1997). Those who have taken an entre-preneurship course are more likely to start anew business due to their enhanced knowledgeand motivation for partaking in entrepreneurialactivities (Piperopoulos and Dimov 2015).Finally, students from private schools may, onaverage, have greater access to capital than stu-dents from public schools, thus enhancing theperceived feasibility of starting a business.

Statistical ProceduresRegression analysis was used to examine all

hypotheses (Cohen et al. 2003). Two models arepresented for each hypothesis. In each case,Model 1 corresponds to Sample 1 (businessundergraduates) and Model 2 corresponds to

5Convergent validity for the measures of entrepreneurial motives was first examined by considering thedegree to which items within their respective factors were highly correlated across the combined primary sam-ples (i.e., as a general rule factor loadings should be greater than 0.4; Tabachnick and Fidell 2001). As shown inAppendix, factor loadings ranged from 0.61 to 0.79 for unproductive entrepreneurial motives (Mean factorloading 5 0.70) and from 0.61 to 0.86 for productive entrepreneurial motives (Mean factor loading 5 0.73). Theseresults support the convergent validity of the measures. Second, convergent validity was more broadly investi-gated by comparing the association of the measures with a number of scales included in the supplementary datacollection that were expected to be theoretically related to unproductive and productive entrepreneurial motives.Specifically, the measures used for comparison included the negative and positive reciprocity scales developedby Perugini et al. (2003) to examine personal norms of reciprocity, as well as the profit-seeking and fairnessscales developed by Leybman, Zuroff, and Fournier (2011) to examine social exchange styles. In support of con-vergent validity: the measure of unproductive entrepreneurial motives was positively correlated with negativereciprocity (r 5 0.26, p< 0.01) and with profit-seeking in social exchange (r 5 0.27, p< 0.01); additionally, themeasure of productive entrepreneurial motives was positive correlated with positive reciprocity (r 5 0.31,p< 0.01) and with fairness in social exchange (r 5 0.21, p< 0.05). These results provide additional support forthe convergent validity of the measures.

Discriminant validity was evaluated in two ways. First, we considered the between-factor loading of items forthe unproductive and productive measures, which should differ by 0.2 or more from within-factor loadings (Hairet al. 2010). The differences in the absolute values of the between-factor loadings ranged from 0.35 to 0.65 forunproductive entrepreneurial motives (mean difference in between-factor loadings 5 0.56) and from 0.42 to 0.75for productive entrepreneurial motives (mean difference in between-factor loadings 5 0.61). Second, we eval-uated the correlations between the items for the two measures (no correlations should be greater than 0.7, sincethis level of association would indicate a majority of shared variance). The absolute values of the correlationsranged from 0.04 to 0.32, with an average correlation of 0.15. Thus, the measures appear to demonstrate reasona-ble discriminant validity.


Sample 2 (MBAs). Due to recent arguments thatcontrol variables can distort relationshipsbetween focal variables of interest (Becker2005; Lance and Vandenberg 2009; Schjoedtand Bird 2014; Spector and Brannick 2011), thehypotheses were evaluated both with and with-out controls. Since there was no change in thestatistical significance or pattern of resultsaccording to whether the controls wereincluded, the full models including the controlsare presented and used to test the study hypoth-eses. All independent variables were mean-centered in order to reduce the potential formulticollinearity. The change in R-squared ispresented for each model in terms of additionalvariance accounted for by the main effectsabove and beyond the control variables.

The first hypothesis, regarding entrepreneur-ial intentions was examined using the full sam-ples of 508 business undergraduates and 234MBAs. The remaining hypotheses, regardingunproductive and productive entrepreneurialmotives, were examined using the respectivesubsets of 281 business undergraduates and 145MBAs high in entrepreneurial intentions (i.e.,those scoring an average of 3 or higher; that isendorsing the statements, and thus effectivelyqualifying as early-stage nascent entrepreneurs;Reynolds and White 1997). This approach wasused because it was considered most appropri-ate to examine the entrepreneurial motives ofonly those persons who showed behavioralintentions toward starting a new venture (i.e.,those involved in the nascent stages of planningto launch a business). Correlation tables for thefull samples and the entrepreneurial subsamplesare presented as Tables 1 and 3. Tables 2, 4,and 5 present the regression results for H1–H3.

Common Method Variance Analyses andSocial Desirability Bias

Multiple steps were taken as part of theresearch design to reduce the threat of commonmethod variance and social desirability. First, thedependent variable of entrepreneurial intentionsinvolved nonsubjective behavior—specifically,whether a participant had begun the entrepre-neurial process (e.g., has started business plan-ning). The dependent variables regarding anindividual’s motives for starting the entrepreneur-ial process, are necessarily within the purview ofthe individual—that is, an individual’s motivesare an intraindividual phenomenon. As a result,the actors in question are necessarily informantsof this variable. Second, participant responses

were anonymous, thus eliminating any reason tomisrepresent one’s motives and reducing thelikelihood of social desirability bias.

The above points notwithstanding, two stepswere taken to evaluate the threat of commonmethod variance and social desirability bias.First, we assessed the amount of varianceaccounted for by loading all of the items fromthe study’s focal variables onto a single factor.This accounted for 20.44 percent of the variancefor the undergraduate sample and 21.42 percentof the variance for the MBA sample, which ineach case is well below the 50 percent thresholdthat is needed to be a distinct construct. Second,as part of our supplemental data collection(n 5 130), we examined the relationship of ourdependent variables with a 5-item measure ofsocial desirability (a 5 0.75) developed by Hays,Hayashi, and Stewart (1989). To do so, weregressed entrepreneurial intentions (B 5 20.06,p> .10), unproductive entrepreneurial motives(B 5 0.13, p> .10), and productive entrepreneur-ial motives (B 5 20.17, p> .10) onto the measureof social desirability. Each of the regression coef-ficients was nonsignificant, indicating that noneof the focal dependent variables (i.e., entrepre-neurial intentions, unproductive entrepreneurialmotives, productive entrepreneurial motives) aresignificant predictors of social desirability. Takentogether, the above noted evidence suggests thatneither common method variance nor socialdesirability biases threatened our ability to testthe study’s hypotheses.

ResultsPrior to our hypothesis testing, we first con-

sider the potential threat of multicollinearity.The possibility of multicollinearity was exam-ined using variance inflation factor (VIF) andconditional index (CI) scores for models used totest each of the hypotheses. The largest VIFscore across both samples was 1.42, which iswell below the cutoff value of 10 that is consid-ered to be a problematic (Neter et al. 1996). Inaddition, the highest CI score across both sam-ples was 1.86, which is well below the value of30 that is seen as an indicator of multicollinear-ity (Tabachnick and Fidell 2001). Accordingly,multicollinearity does not appear to be a threatto our hypothesis testing. We now turn to theformal tests of our hypotheses.

H1 predicted that individuals’ levels of narcis-sism (H1a), psychopathy (H1b), Machiavellian-ism (H1c) would be positively associated with


Tab

le1

Des

crip

tive

Stat

isti

csan

dV

aria

ble

Inte

rcorr

elat

ion

sfo

rFull

Sam

ple

s

Under

gra

duat

es(N

5508)

r

Var

iable

Mea

nS.

D.a

12

34

56

78

910

Age

21.5

23.

22Se

x0.

580.

490.

00C

auca

sian

0.81

0.39

0.01

0.02

Mar

ried

0.05

0.22

0.51

**0.

030.

04C

hild

ren

0.03

0.16

0.47

**2

0.03

0.02

0.46

**Entr

epre

neu

rship

cours

e0.

360.

480.

15**

0.08

20.

082

0.02

0.03

Pri

vate

school

0.70

0.46

0.27

**2

0.10

*2

0.01

0.11

*0.

080.

40**

Nar

ciss

ism

3.50

0.76

2.0

9*0.

070.

032

0.01

20.

050.

022

0.06

Psy

chopat

hy

2.14

0.75

0.05

0.28

**2

0.03

20.

010.

022

0.03

20.

15**

0.16

**M

achia

velli

anis

m2.

420.

882

0.07

0.28

**0.

022

0.08

20.

10*

20.

012

0.14

**.0

29**

0.50

**Entr

epre

neu

rial

inte

ntions

3.11

1.23

0.12

**0.

19**

20.

16**

0.08

0.03

0.27

**0.

09*

0.09

*2

0.02

20.

01

MB

As

(N5

234)

r

Var

iable

Mea

nS.

D.a

12

34

56

78

910

Age

29.6

26.

61Se

x0.

680.

472

0.03

Cau

casi

an0.

740.

442

0.11

0.08

Mar

ried

0.42

0.49

0.34

**0.

000.

01C

hild

ren

0.24

0.43

0.57

**2

.03

0.06

0.50

**Entr

epre

neu

rship

cours

e0.

230.

422

0.10

20.

012

0.03

20.

17**

20.

09

Pri

vate

school

0.79

0.41

0.25

**0.

16*

20.

000.

15*

0.15

*2

0.17

*N

arci

ssis

m3.

090.

752

0.14

*0.

20**

0.08

20.

042

0.17

**2

0.05

0.09

Psy

chopat

hy

2.10

0.81

20.

20**

0.24

**0.

17**

20.

13*

20.

15*

0.02

20.

040.

18**

Mac

hia

velli

anis

m2.

300.

872

0.14

*0.

17*

0.17

*2

0.16

*2

0.12

0.07

20.

070.

32**

0.48

**Entr

epre

neu

rial

inte

ntions

3.31

1.21

0.05

0.18

**2

0.03

0.05

0.07

0.11

20.

020.

16**

0.11

0.07

a S.D

.,st

andar

ddev

iation.

*p<

.05.

**p<

.01.


their intentions to start a new venture. As shownin Models 1 and 2 of Table 2, in both samples,narcissism was found to have a significant posi-tive relationship with entrepreneurial intentions(Bugrad 5 0.17, p< .05; BMBA 5 0.26, p< .05),whereas psychopathy (Bugrad 5 20.11, p> .10;BMBA 5 0.13, p> .10) and Machiavellianism(Bugrad 5 20.07, p> .10; BMBA 5 20.05, p> .10)were not significantly related to entrepreneurialintentions. Overall, these results support H1a,and do not support H1b or H1c.

H2 predicted that individuals’ levels of narcis-sism (H2a), psychopathy (H2b), and Machiavel-lianism (H2c) would be positively associatedwith their level of unproductive entrepreneurialmotives. As shown in Models 1 and 2 of Table4, narcissism was indeed positive and significantin the undergraduate sample (Bugrad 5 0.14,p< .05), and nonsignificant in the MBA sample

(BMBA 5 0.00, p> .10); as predicted, psychopa-thy (Bugrad 5 0.25, p< .01; BMBA 5 0.17, p< .05)and Machiavellianism (Bugrad 5 0.19, p< .01;BMBA 5 0.23, p< .01) were significantly linkedto higher unproductive entrepreneurial motivesacross both samples. Overall, these results offerpartial support for H2a, and full support forH2b and H2c.

H3 predicted that individuals’ levels of narcis-sism (H3a), psychopathy (H3b), and Machiavel-lianism (H3c) would be negatively associatedwith their level of productive entrepreneurialmotives. As shown in Models 1 and 2 of Table5: narcissism was significant but positive in theundergraduate sample (Bugrad 5 0.10, p< .05)and nonsignificant in the MBA sample (BMBA 5

0.03, p> .10); psychopathy, as expected, had asignificant negative relationship with productiveentrepreneurial motives in both samples

Table 2Regression Models of Entrepreneurial Intentions for Full Samples

Entrepreneurial Intentions

Undergraduates(N 5 508)

MBAs(N 5 234)

Model 1 Model 2Variable B (SEa) B (SE)

Control variablesAge 0.03 (0.02) 0.01 (0.02)Sex 0.49** (0.11) 0.41* (0.18)Caucasian 20.46** (0.13) 20.16 (0.18)Married 0.29 (0.29) 0.06 (0.19)Children 20.20 (0.37) 0.25 (0.25)Entrepreneurship course 0.60** (0.12) 0.35 (0.19)Private school 20.05 (0.13) 20.19 (0.20)

Main effectsNarcissism 0.17* (0.07) 0.26* (.11)Psychopathy 20.11 (0.08) 0.13 (.11)Machiavellianism 20.07 (0.07) 20.05 (.11)

F-Ratio 8.45** 2.10*R2 0.15 0.09F-Change 2.95* 2.24DR2 0.02 0.03

aS.E., standard error.*p< .05.**p< .01.


Tab

le3

Des

crip

tive

Stat

isti

csan

dV

aria

ble

Inte

rcorr

elat

ions

for

Subsa

mp

les

of

Ear

ly-S

tage

Nas

cent

Entr

epre

neu

rs Under

gra

duat

es(n

5281)

r

Var

iable

Mea

nS.

D.a

12

34

56

78

910

11

1.A

ge21

.75

3.43

2.Se

x0.

660.

482

0.04

3.C

auca

sian

0.77

0.43

0.01

0.10

4.M

arri

ed0.

010.

240.

51**

20.

010.

075.

Child

ren

0.03

0.18

0.42

**2

0.04

0.01

0.46

**6.

Entr

epre

neu

rship

cours

e0.

440.

500.

13*

0.08

20.

122

0.02

0.04

7.Pri

vate

school

0.72

0.45

0.28

**2

0.11

20.

050.

090.

070.

46**

8.N

arci

ssis

m3.

570.

742

0.10

0.03

0.02

0.03

20.

092

0.01

20.

059.

Psy

chopat

hy

2.16

0.77

0.01

0.24

**0.

012

0.01

0.02

20.

062

0.18

**0.

0910

.M

achia

velli

anis

m2.

440.

802

0.03

0.25

**0.

022

0.08

20.

072

0.10

20.

23**

0.18

**0.

41**

11.U

npro

duct

ive

entr

epre

neu

rial

motive

s2.

550.

752

0.05

0.14

*2

0.12

*2

0.08

20.

102

0.09

20.

020.

20**

0.34

**0.

33**

12.Pro

duct

ive

entr

epre

neu

rial

motive

s4.

370.

562

0.20

**2

0.15

*2

0.12

*2

0.16

**0.

010.

120.

040.

122

0.26

**2

0.06

20.

18**


MB

As

(n5

145)

r

Var

iable

Mea

nS.

D.a

12

34

56

78

910

11

1.A

ge29

.75

6.66

2.Se

x0.

750.

432

0.05

3.C

auca

sian

0.75

0.43

20.

150.

114.

Mar

ried

0.43

0.50

0.28

**2

0.02

0.05

5.C

hild

ren

0.26

0.44

0.56

**2

0.03

0.08

0.49

**6.

Entr

epre

neu

rship

cours

e0.

260.

442

0.09

0.04

20.

102

0.22

**2

0.13

7.Pri

vate

school

0.79

0.41

0.28

**0.

020.

020.

20*

0.14

20.

138.

Nar

ciss

ism

3.18

0.76

20.

17*

0.14

0.10

0.02

20.

112

0.07

0.07

9.Psy

chopat

hy

2.17

0.83

20.

21**

0.15

0.20

*2

0.11

20.

140.

022

0.10

0.22

**10

.M

achia

velli

anis

m2.

340.

902

20.

17*

0.15

0.16

*2

0.16

*2

0.09

0.06

20.

160.

31**

0.50

**11

.U

npro

duct

ive

entr

epre

neu

rial

motive

s2.

360.

752

0.12

0.19

*0.

042

0.01

20.

032

0.12

0.05

0.17

*0.

33**

0.36

**

12.Pro

duct

ive

entr

epre

neu

rial

motive

s4.

120.

730.

002

0.22

**2

0.25

**2

0.02

20.

110.

18*

20.

152

0.10

20.

32**

20.

23**

20.

47**

aS.

D.,

stan

dar

ddev

iation.

*p<

.05.

**p<

.01.

Tab

le3

Con

tin

ued


(Bugrad 520.19, p< .01; BMBA 5 2.22, p< .01);and Machiavellianism showed a nonsignificant rela-tionship with productive entrepreneurial motivesin both samples (Bugrad 5 0.04, p> .10; BMBA 5

20.08, p> .10). Accordingly, the results fully sup-port H3b, and do not support H3a and H3c.

DiscussionThis study sought to examine dark psycho-

logical predictors of entrepreneurial intentionsand associated motives for engaging in nascententrepreneurial activity. Overall, the findingsdemonstrate a consistent pattern in which nar-cissism was positively related to entrepreneurialintentions, and psychopathy and Machiavellian-ism being neither over- nor under-representedcharacteristics in those with entrepreneurial

intentions. With regard to participants high inentrepreneurial intentions, those at the begin-ning of the entrepreneurial process and thusqualifying as early-stage nascent entrepreneurs,the results indicate a general pattern in whichpsychopathy and Machiavellianism were posi-tively associated with unproductive entrepre-neurial motives, and psychopathy wasnegatively related to productive entrepreneurialmotives. We now discuss the results in greaterdetail, followed by implications, limitations andfuture directions, and concluding thoughts.

The Dark Triad and EntrepreneurialIntentions

Drawing from life history theory, we antici-pated that the propensity for individuals high

Table 4Regression Models of Unproductive Entrepreneurial Motives for

Subsamples of Early-Stage Nascent Entrepreneurs

Unproductive Entrepreneurial Motives

Undergraduates(n 5 281)

MBAs(n 5 145)


Control variablesAge 20.00 (0.02) 20.02 (0.01)Sex 0.11 (0.09) 0.22 (0.14)Caucasian 20.25** (0.10) 20.17 (0.14)Married 20.11 (0.21) 0.03 (0.14)Children 20.24 (0.27) 0.11 (0.18)Entrepreneurship course 20.21* (0.09) 20.24 (0.14)Private school 0.27* (0.11) 0.22 (0.15)

Main effectsNarcissism 0.14* (0.06) 0.00 (0.08)Psychopathy 0.25** (0.06) 0.17* (0.08)Machiavellianism 0.19** (0.05) 0.23** (0.08)

F-Ratio 7.73** 3.80**R2 0.22 0.20F-Change 18.23** 8.44**DR2 0.16 0.15



in the dark triad to follow a “fast life” behav-ioral strategy would result in such personshaving higher intentions to become entrepre-neurs. However, our results did not find eachfacet of the dark triad to individually predictentrepreneurial intentions. Narcissism was theonly individual facet of the dark triad that hada significant relationship with entrepreneurialintentions across both samples. This findingreplicates other research demonstrating a pos-itive linkage of narcissism with entrepreneur-ial intentions (Mathieu and St-Jean 2013). Ourresults extend previous findings by providingevidence of this relationship within the con-text of the full dark triad; that is, we find thatnarcissism uniquely explains significant

variance in entrepreneurial intentions above-and-beyond (controlling for) psychopathy andMachiavellianism.

As noted, psychopathy and Machiavellianismwere not found to be significant individual pre-dictors of entrepreneurial intentions. The lack ofa relationship for psychopathy and Machiavel-lianism with entrepreneurial intentions couldtheoretically be explained by subtle differencesbetween the dark triad characteristics. Whereasnarcissism inflates self-perceptions of ability andmakes attention and admiration an ends initself, this is not the case for psychopathy orMachiavellianism. Absent narcissistic beliefs ordelusions of grandeur, it takes considerablework to start a venture—and entrepreneurial

Table 5Regression Models of Productive Entrepreneurial Motives for

Subsamples of Early-Stage Nascent Entrepreneurs

Productive Entrepreneurial Motives

Undergraduates(n 5 281)

MBAs(n 5 145)


Control variablesAge 20.03** (0.01) 0.00 (0.01)Sex 20.13 (0.07) 20.27* (0.13)Caucasian 20.12 (0.07) 20.22 (0.13)Married 20.28 (0.16) 0.11 (0.13)Children 0.52* (0.20) 20.26 (0.17)Entrepreneurship course 0.14* (0.07) 0.27* (0.13)Private school 20.01 (0.08) 20.30* (0.15)

Main effectsNarcissism 0.10* (0.04) 0.03 (.08)Psychopathy 20.19** (0.05) 20.22** (0.08)Machiavellianism 0.04 (0.04) 20.08 (0.07)

F-Ratio 6.06** 4.29**R2 0.18 0.24F-Change 7.44** 5.09**DR2 0.07 0.09



success is inherently uncertain. Thus, it may beat least as preferable for individuals high in psy-chopathy or Machiavellianism to join existingventures or organizations, where there arealready resources and rents to appropriate, andother individuals (e.g., coworkers) to be usedfor unreciprocated social exchange. The under-lying (over)confidence and attention-seekingcharacteristics associated with narcissism maypartly explain why it was related to entrepre-neurial intentions while psychopathy andMachiavellianism were not. Although psychop-athy’s emotional callousness and Machiavellian-ism’s capacity for manipulation may be useful toan individual once entering entrepreneurship, itappears they do not significantly relate to entre-preneurial intentions. In addition, it should beunderscored that neither psychopathy norMachiavellianism had a significant negative rela-tionship with entrepreneurial intentions. Thissuggests that these characteristics are neitherover- nor under-represented in those with entre-preneurial intentions. In other words, early-stage nascent entrepreneurs may, on average,be a bit more narcissistic than their peers, butare not distinguishably higher or lower in Mach-iavellian and psychopathy than business-oriented peers.

The Dark Triad and Unproductive versusProductive Entrepreneurial Motives

For early-stage nascent entrepreneurs (i.e.,those endorsing high entrepreneurial intentions,including having begun business planning), weapplied social exchange theory to predict thatthe dark triad would be positively related tounproductive entrepreneurial motives and nega-tively related to productive entrepreneurialmotives. In so doing, we suggested that theentrepreneurial motives of those higher in thevarious facets of the dark triad would be charac-terized by value appropriation rather than valuecreation.

The findings yielded results generally consist-ent with predictions for unproductive entre-preneurial motives, and were mixed for pro-ductive entrepreneurial motives. Psychopathy andMachiavellianism were found to each have a posi-tive relationship with unproductive entrepreneur-ial motives across both samples, whereas therelationship of narcissism with unproductiveentrepreneurial motives was positive and signifi-cant for the undergraduate sample but nonsignifi-cant for the MBA sample (narcissism did,however, have a significant positive correlation

with unproductive entrepreneurial motives in theMBA sample: r5 0.17, p< .05; the relationshipwas nonsignificant only after controlling for psy-chopathy and Machiavellianism). Thus, consistentwith a value appropriating approach to relation-ships and broadly toward life, the dark triad—and particularly the darkest traits in the triad (i.e.,psychopathy and Machiavellianism; Rauthmannand Kolar 2012)—were strongly linked with anunproductive approach toward entrepreneurship.

In terms of productive entrepreneurialmotives, psychopathy was the only consistentpredictor across both samples—operating inalignment with our general expectations interms of the dark triad having a negative rela-tionship with such motives. Considering that acallous lack of emotion and wanton disregardfor others are the most defining markers of psy-chopathy (Dutton 2012), it is not surprising thatthis facet of the dark triad stood apart as beingthe characteristic that was most negativelyrelated to productive entrepreneurial motives.This is consistent with the general callous natureof such persons and research indicating a nega-tive relationship of psychopathy with social-oriented entrepreneurship (Akhtar, Ahmetoglu,and Chamorro-Premuzic 2013).

In contrast, within the undergraduate sample,narcissism was found to have a positive relation-ship with productive entrepreneurial motives.This might be explained by the narcissisticdesire for attention and admiration, consideringthe social appeal of productive value creation—particularly among idealistic undergraduateswho are currently part of a generation that hasgrown up with models of prosocial-orientedstartups being viewed as cool by their peers(Mycoskie 2012).

In terms of the other nonsignificant finding,individuals who are high in Machiavellianismmay not be motivated by value creation for any-one other than themselves, as admiration is nota valued end for such persons; yet being per-ceived as a socially oriented entrepreneur mightfacilitate their duplicitous theater, offering anexplanation for why such individuals do notdemonstrate negative inclinations toward pro-ductive orientations.

Implications for EntrepreneurshipTheory

The entrepreneurship literature on individualdifference characteristics has been dominatedby positive traits, particularly with respect tothose linked with entrepreneurial intentions and


motives (Antoncic et al. 2015; Zhao, Seibert, andLumpkin 2010). The current research set out toalternatively consider potential negative or darkindividual difference characteristics. Our motiva-tion was to examine potential unproductive(i.e., value-appropriating) and productive (i.e.,value-creating) drivers of individuals’ intereststarting a new venture. The reason being that itis arguably as important to identify unproduc-tive drivers of entrepreneurship as it is to iden-tify productive drivers, so that we not onlyknow what to promote, but also what should bere-channeled or discouraged (Shepherd 2015).While the vast majority of existing theory onentrepreneurial entry and associated policy pre-sumes value-creating entrepreneurship, ourresults suggest that some degree of cautionshould be taken. For example, individuals highin psychopathy and/or Machiavellianism wereneither more nor less likely to possess entrepre-neurial intentions than others; however, amongsuch persons high in psychopathy and/orMachiavellianism with entrepreneurial inten-tions, when entering this vocation, they arelikely to do so with unproductive motives aimedat appropriating value rather than creating it.

The findings also surface a potentiallycounter-intuitive upside of narcissism amongundergraduates, an individual characteristic onthe rise within this population (Twenge et al.2008). The significant positive relationship ofnarcissism with entrepreneurial intentions, andmoreover with value-creating entrepreneurialmotives, suggests that this otherwise egocentriccharacteristic holds productive potential andcould be channeled for good. Consideringincreasing levels of narcissism in society andamong undergraduate students in particular(Twenge and Campbell 2010), if properlydirected, it may be a psychological resourceinstrumental for entry into productive entrepre-neurship in the face of long odds. Futureresearch is necessary to further examine “howmuch” narcissism may be beneficial, as well ashow it can be most constructively channeled.

Similarly, future research is needed to deter-mine the interplay and effects of the dark triadon new venture survival and performance. Onone hand, it reasons that having “just enough”of the dark triad characteristics may be helpful(or adaptive) with respect to certain aspects ofentrepreneurship such as resource mobilization,resistance to stress, and even innovation (Jona-son, Koenig, and Tost 2010; Jonason, Li, andTeicher 2010). Yet on the other hand, venture

creation, let alone survival and performance,typically requires a long-term view and focusedpersistence (Baron, Franklin, and Hmieleski2016; Hmieleski, Corbett, and Baron 2013)—which may be at odds with key aspects of thedark triad. Thus, similar to other double-edgedcharacteristics such as optimism and positiveaffect (Baron, Hmieleski, and Henry 2012;Baron, Tang and Hmieleski 2011; Hmieleskiand Baron 2009) or behavioral disinhibition(Lerner 2016), it is possible that aspects of thedark triad could be positively related to interestand entry into entrepreneurship, while—at highlevels—negatively related to sustained perform-ance in developing and leading new ventures.Future research is needed to explicitly test theseand other questions relating to the double-edged nature of personality characteristics(DeNisi 2015; Klotz and Neubaum 2016).

Implications for Education, Policy, andPractice

Our findings offer several potential implica-tions for education, policy, and practice. Interms of education, it appears that businessschool faculty may need to become increasinglyaccustom to interacting with students high onthe dark triad personality characteristics—asthese dispositions are on the rise among thispopulation (Bergman, Westerman, and Daly2010; Webster and Harmon 2002). At firstthought, this fact may seem unfortunate andeven daunting; yet in terms of entrepreneurshipthere may be a silver lining. Such students mayhave less fear than typical students in terms oflaunching ventures and may be naturally skilledat acquiring resources and bootstrapping(Jonason, Koenig, and Tost 2010; Jonason, Li,and Teicher 2010). The self-centered nature ofindividuals who are high on facets of the darktriad, particularly those who are high on narcis-sism, however, creates the need to move stu-dents’ mindsets from “I” and “me” (which hasbecome the norm for students due to the rise insocial media; Twenge and Campbell 2010) to“we” and “us.” This point is of crucial impor-tance considering the need for entrepreneurs tobuild teams and lead employees (Hmieleski,Cole, and Baron 2012; Klotz et al. 2014). Thedevelopment of self-regulation skills will beespecially important for business school stu-dents high in the dark triad, such that they maybe able to capitalize on its adaptive aspectswhile avoiding its socially counter-productive


downside that could diminish the chances ofachieving long-term success.

In terms of practice, it might be importantfor investors who are betting on mid- to long-term returns from startups to be weary of thosethat are led by entrepreneurs who possess psy-chopathic, and to a lesser extent Machiavellian,characteristics. Such individuals appear to bemotivated by appropriative strategies that mightbe advantageous for producing short-termresults, but could become less viable in thelong-run if their self-interested behavior eventu-ally tarnishes their reputation. Thus, problemsof agency are likely to be heightened whendealing with such persons–requiring tightlyaligning interests, appropriate organizationalpolicies and procedures, and independent exter-nal oversight. In contrast, those high in narcis-sism may be partly driven by a productiveorientation that could be effective at producinglong-term results if properly channeled. Impor-tantly, consideration of the dark triad (and asso-ciated motives) by investors when evaluatingaspiring entrepreneurs should not precludeevaluation of other factors that have been previ-ously identified as predictors of individuals’potential for creating profitable new ventures.Rather, we suggest that traditional factors (e.g.,entrepreneurial experience) should be consid-ered hand-in-hand with the underlying disposi-tions and motives of nascent entrepreneurs soas to maximize both financial performance andoverall value creation.

From a policy perspective, it may prove use-ful for grant programs intending to foster entre-preneurship to be strategic in terms of focusingtoward the communal aspects of venture crea-tion and away from a more celebrity-orientedview of entrepreneurship. Government agenciesand universities that award grants and prizemoney to startup ventures should be careful toavoid “fast-life” entrepreneurs high in the darktriad (particularly, psychopathy and Machiavel-lianism), because such persons may be likely torecklessly run through resources quickly with-out providing any long-term societal benefits. Inpractice, very simple adjustments to the designof competitions and awards could potentiallyhelp. For example: independent third-party eval-uations (e.g., customers) of the entrepreneur/startup could be included as part of judging cri-teria as well as interviews with startup subordi-nates (looking for evidence of abusive or othernondevelopmental interactions); awards coulddeemphasize cash prizes and instead focus on

nonpecuniary awards (e.g., free enrollment intraining programs and mentorships, aversive tothe narcissist) and distribute prize money over aperiod of time; and press-releases and ceremo-nies could present the award to the startupteam (versus the entrepreneur) ideally alongsidethe customers/stakeholders that the ventureseeks to serve.

Limitations and Future DirectionsWe now address a few limitations of the cur-

rent research, and offer some suggestions forfuture directions. First, it could be questioned asto whether our findings generalize to older ormore experienced business professionals. Forresearch examining predictors of entrepreneur-ial intentions, business undergraduate and MBAsamples are seemingly at least as appropriate asother populations such as full-time employees.Many individuals begin the entrepreneurial pro-cess while in college, and most business under-graduates and MBA students are on the verge ofmaking vocational choices—to become(co)founders, employees of a startup firm, oremployees of existing organizations. Addition-ally, the increase of dark triad characteristicsamong college students made this an interestingpopulation for examining the study’s researchquestion. It is also important to note that a num-ber of participants in our study did have somedegree of entrepreneurial experience. For exam-ple, many had been employed by a startup(nugrad 5 150, nMBA 5 55) and several had previ-ously launched a new venture (nugrad 5 71,nMBA 5 53). It would, however, be interestingfor future research to examine similar researchquestions using samples of participants that rep-resent a broader range of life stages.

Another potential limitation is that ourresearch used a cross-sectional design. Ourapproach in this regard seemed warranted con-sidering that there is considerable evidence thatintentions are a strong predictor of futureactions (Ajzen 1991), entrepreneurship is anagentic activity that cannot begin without inten-tions (Krueger, Reilly, and Carsrud 2000), andbecause we examined entrepreneurial intentionsfrom a behavioral perspective that evaluated theextent to which actual steps were taken towardthe launch of a new venture (e.g., whether theparticipant had considered the type of businessto be started, whether the participant had begunplanning to start a business). Nonetheless, itwould be useful for future studies to track theextent to which participants’ dark triad


characteristics are associated with the actuallaunching of new ventures.

Considering that the study’s measures weregathered from a single source, there is a possibil-ity that our results could be partly influenced bycommon method variance and social desirabilitybias. Our findings do, however, appear robust—based on the fact that the they held even afterincluding a range of controls, were generallyconsistent across two different samples, and thatthe results did not appear to be biased by socialdesirability (according to our supplemental datacollection and analysis). Despite these facts, theopportunity remains for future research to useother designs and sources of data.

The fact that we used a relatively short mea-sure of the dark triad (the Dirty Dozen; Jonasonand Webster 2010) could be viewed as anotherlimitation of the current research. We selectedthis measure for use because it is concise, hasgood psychometric properties, and containsitems that are worded in such a way as to be rela-tively inoffensive as compared to other estab-lished measures of the dark triad. These factorsare even more important when consideringmeasures for studies involving full-time founders,as other longer and more intrusive measures maybe less practical for use among such populations.With these advantages stated, it should also benoted that a downside of using Dirty Dozen isthat its brevity tends to limit its predictive poweras compared to other lengthier measures of thedark triad (Miller et al. 2012). As an alternative tothe Dirty Dozen, the 27-item Short Dark Triad(SD3) measure recently developed by Jones andPaulhus (2014) is another option for entrepre-neurship researchers to consider.

It is also important to underscore that ourdevelopment of measures for unproductive andproductive entrepreneurial intentions is onlyintended to be a first step at assessing these con-structs. As such, we encourage researchers todevelop more in-depth scales to measure these,as well as other types, of entrepreneurialmotives. The development of such measureswill be critical to build a more extensive base ofknowledge regarding why individuals intend toengage in entrepreneurial activity (Carsrud andBr€annback 2011; Shepherd 2015).

Next, the fact we did not observe the darktriad to explain a great deal of variance in entre-preneurial intentions within the current study(albeit not much less than other dispositionalpredictors of entrepreneurial intentions reportedwithin the literature; e.g., Zhao, Seibert, and

Lumpkin 2010) leaves open the related questionof whether such characteristics might be moreprevalent among later-stage entrepreneurs. Thereare a few plausible reasons why the dark triadmay indeed be higher among later-stage entre-preneurs than incipient nascent entrepreneurs.First, the uncertain and challenging nature ofthe entrepreneurial environment may activatedark triad traits within individuals, thusenhancing or further developing these charac-teristics within individuals who possess suchdispositions (much like individuals born withgenetic characteristics for athleticism becomefitter more quickly and to higher levels whenexercising than persons not possessing suchcharacteristics). Another possibility is that darktriad characteristics may be advantageous inhelping to survive the brutish conditions andchallenges associated with early-stage ventur-ing. In such case, the proportion of entrepre-neurs who are high in the dark triad mightincrease among those in the later stages of thenascent venturing process, as individuals lowin the dark triad may (initially) be dispropor-tionally selected out (or exit from) the popula-tion. In the long-run, however, such a trendwould likely reverse, as the short-term (fast-life) orientation of those high in the dark triadis likely to be counter-productive for the long-term growth and sustainability of firms. Theseconjectures represent potentially interestingopportunities for future research.

We should also clarify that life history theoryand social exchange theory were applied in thecurrent research due to the natural linkagesbetween these theories, their appropriatenesswith examining entrepreneurial intentions andmotives, and because these theories have argu-ably been the most commonly used frameworksapplied for the study of the dark triad (Jonason,Koenig, and Tost 2010; O’Boyle et al. 2012).With this said, other theories may also be appro-priate for examining the dark triad within thecontext of new venture creation and develop-ment. For example, person-job fit theory andcontingency theories might be particularly usefulframeworks for examining whether the darktriad is an adaptive set of personality characteris-tics for entrepreneurs in general (Kristof-Brown,Zimmerman, and Johnson 2005; Markman andBaron 2003) and within certain entrepreneurialcontexts in particular (Hmieleski and Baron2008; Hmieleski, Carr, and Baron 2015). Moregenerally, future research involving the darktriad could bridge relatively dissonant or cross-


level theoretical perspectives on organizing. Forexample: whether, when, or which actors resem-ble Schumpeterian opportunity entrepreneurs,versus self-interest with guile opportunists com-mon to strategy and economics.

Finally, our consideration of entrepreneurialmotives and intent presumed formal economyventuring. Our theory and findings suggest theopportunity for future research illuminating therole of the dark triad in more shadowy types ofentrepreneurial activity such as that which takesplace in the underground economy (Webb et al.2009).

ConclusionsMoving beyond the largely taken-for-granted

view of entrepreneurship as source of value cre-ation, the current research consideredindividual-level factors relating to unproductiveversus productive venturing. Our findings sug-gest that, even within an institutional contextsuitable for productive entrepreneurship, indi-vidual differences may motivate actors to pursueunproductive motives for venturing. Previousresearch on entrepreneurial intentions has typi-cally assumed that the more new venturesstarted, the better—thus, attempting to discoverlevers (e.g., entrepreneurial self-efficacy) thatmight be used to increase entrepreneurial inten-tions of the general population. Our nuancedview suggests that not all such levers are likelyto be equal (e.g., some may attract/enable indi-viduals high in the dark triad, inadvertentlyincreasing the entry of individuals with unpro-ductive motives). For these reasons, policy mak-ers and potential new venture stakeholdersought to be vigilant in terms of the design ofincentives and in managing their relationshipswith individuals potentially high in the darktriad. While individuals high in the dark triadmay not be greatly over-represented in the poolof aspiring entrepreneurs, those who do possessentrepreneurial intentions may stand to useentrepreneurship as a vehicle for appropriatingvalue rather than creating it.

ReferencesAdrian, R., S. C. Richards, and D. L. Paulhus

(2013). “The Dark Triad of Personality: A10 Year Review,” Social and PersonalityPsychology Compass 7, 199–216.

Ajzen, I. (1991). “The Theory of PlannedBehavior,” Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes 50, 179–211.

Akhtar, R., G. Ahmetoglu, and T. Chamorro-Premuzic (2013). “Greed Is Good? Assessingthe Relationship between Entrepreneurshipand Subclinical Psychopathy,” Personalityand Individual Differences 54, 420–425.

Anderson, A. R., and L. Warren (2011). “TheEntrepreneur as Hero and Jester: Enactingthe Entrepreneurial Discourse,” Interna-tional Small Business Journal 29, 589–609.

Antoncic, B., T. Bratkovic Kregar, G. Singh,and A. F. DeNoble (2015). “The Big FivePersonality-Entrepreneurship Relationship:Evidence from Slovenia,” Journal of SmallBusiness Management 53, 819–841.

Babiak, P., and R. D. Hare (2006). Snakes inSuits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. NewYork: HarperCollins Publishing.

Baron, R. A. (2015). Essentials of Entrepre-neurship: Evidence and Practice. North-ampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Baron, R. A., R. J. Franklin, and K. M.Hmieleski (2016). “Why EntrepreneursOften Experience Low, Not High, Levels ofStress: The Joint Effects of Selection andPsychological Capital,” Journal of Manage-ment 42(3), 742–768.

Baron, R. A., K. M. Hmieleski, and R. A. Henry(2012). “Entrepreneurs’ Dispositional Posi-tive Affect: The Potential Benefits—andPotential Costs—of Being ‘Up’,” Journal ofBusiness Venturing 27, 310–324.

Baron, R. A., J. Tang, and K. M. Hmieleski(2011). “The Downside of Being ‘Up’: Entre-preneurs’ Dispositional Affect and Firm Per-formance,” Strategic EntrepreneurshipJournal 5(2), 101–119.

Baron, R. A., H. Zhao, and Q. Miao (2015).“Personal Motives, Moral Disengagement,and Unethical Decisions by Entrepreneurs:Cognitive Mechanisms on the ‘SlipperySlope’,” Journal of Business Ethics 128(1),107–118.

Baumol, W. (1990). “Entrepreneurship: Pro-ductive, Unproductive, and Destructive,”Journal of Political Economy 98, 893–921.

Becker, T. E. (2005). “Potential Problems inthe Statistical Control of Variables in Organ-izational Research: A Qualitative Analysiswith Recommendations,” OrganizationalResearch Methods 8, 274–289.

Bergman, J. Z., J. W. Westerman, and J. P.Daly (2010). “Narcissism in ManagementEducation,” Academy of ManagementLearning and Education 9, 119–131.


Brown, T., J. Sautter, L. Littvay, A. Sautter, andB. Bearnes (2010). “Ethics and Personality:Empathy and Narcissism as Moderators ofEthical Decision Making in BusinessStudents,” Journal of Education for Busi-ness 85, 203–208.

Bruyat, C., and P. A. Julien (2001). “Definingthe Field of Research in Entrepreneurship,”Journal of Business Venturing 16, 165–180.

Buckels, E. E., D. N. Jones, and D. L. Paulhus(2013). “Behavioral Confirmation of Every-day Sadism,” Psychological Science 24,2201–2209.

Buss, D. M. (2009). “How Can EvolutionaryPsychology Successfully Explain Personalityand Individual Differences?,” Perspectiveson Psychological Science 4, 359–366.

Carsrud, A., and M. Br€annback (2011).“Entrepreneurial Motivations: What Do WeStill Need to Know?,” Journal of Small Busi-ness Management 49, 9–26.

Carter, G. L., A. C. Campbell, S. Muncer, andK. A. Carter (2015). “A Mokken Analysis ofthe Dark Triad ‘Dirty Dozen’: Sex and AgeDifferences in Scale Structure and Issueswith Individual Items,” Personality andIndividual Differences 83, 185–191.

Chatterjee, A., and D. C. Hambrick (2007). “It’sAll About Me: Narcissistic Chief ExecutiveOfficers and Their Effects on CompanyStrategy and Performance,” AdministrativeScience Quarterly 52, 351–386.

Chen, C. C., P. G. Greene, and A. Crick (1998).“Does Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy Distin-guish Entrepreneurs from Managers?,” Jour-nal of Business Venturing 13, 295–316.

Cohen, J., P. Cohen, S. G. West, and L. S.Aiken (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavior Scien-ces, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Cook, K. S., and E. Rice (2003). “SocialExchange Theory,” in The Handbook ofSocial Psychology. Ed. J. DeLamater. NewYork: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers,53–76.

Cooper, A. C., and K. W. Artz (1995).“Determinants of Satisfaction for Entrepre-neurs,” Journal of Business Venturing 10,439–457.

Cot�e, S., K. A. DeCelles, J. M. McCarthy, G. A.Van Kleef, and I. Hideg (2011). “The Jekylland Hyde of Emotional Intelligence:Emotion-Regulation Knowledge Facilitatesboth Prosocial and Interpersonally Deviant

Behavior,” Psychological Science 22, 1073–1080.

Decuyper, M., S. De Pauw, F. De Fruyt, M. DeBolle, and B. J. De Clercq (2009). “A Meta-Analysis of Psychopathy, Antisocial PD, andFFM Associations,” European Journal ofPersonality 23, 531–565.

Deluga, R. J. (2001). “American PresidentialMachiavellianism: Implications for CharismaticLeadership and Rated Performance,” TheLeadership Quarterly 12, 339–363.

DeNisi, A. S. (2015). “Some Further Thoughtson the Entrepreneurial Personality,” Entre-preneurship Theory and Practice 39,997–1003.

Dutton, K. (2012). The Wisdom of Psychopaths:What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers CanTeach Us about Success. New York: Farrar,Straus and Giroux.

Ermer, E., and K. A. Kiehl (2010).“Psychopaths Are Impaired in SocialExchange and Precautionary Reasoning,”Psychological Science 21, 1399–1405.

Fairlie, R. W. (2004). “Recent Trends in Ethnicand Racial Business Ownership,” SmallBusiness Economics 23, 203–218.

Foster, J. D., D. E. Reidy, T. A. Misra, and J. S.Goff (2011). “Narcissism and Stock MarketInvesting: Correlates and Consequences ofCocksure Investing,” Personality and Indi-vidual Differences 50, 816–821.

Furtner, M. R., J. F. Rauthmann, and P. Sachse(2011). “The Self-Loving Self-Leader: AnExamination of the Relationship betweenSelf-Leadership and the Dark Triad,” SocialBehavior and Personality 39, 369–380.

Goss, D. (2008). “Enterprise Ritual: A Theory ofEntrepreneurial Emotion and Exchange,”British Journal of Management 19, 120–137.

Gunnthorsdottir, A., K. McCabe, and V. Smith(2002). “Using the Machiavellianism Instru-ment to Predict Trustworthiness in a Bar-gaining Game,” Journal of EconomicPsychology 23, 49–66.

Gupta, V. K., D. B. Turban, and N. M. Bhawe(2008). “The Effect of Gender Stereotype Acti-vation on Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Journalof Applied Psychology 93, 1053–1061.

Hair, J., W. Black, B. Babin, and R. Anderson(2010). Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare PsychopathyChecklist-Revised. Toronto: Multi-HealthSystems.


Hare, R. D., and C. S. Neumann (2006). “ThePCL-R Assessment of Psychopathy: Develop-ment, Structural Properties, and NewDirections,” in Handbook of Psychopathy.Ed. C. Patrick. New York: Guilford, 58–88.

Hays, R. D., T. Hayashi, and A. L. Stewart(1989). “A Five-Item Measure of SociallyDesirable Response Set,” Educational andPsychological Measurement 49, 629–636.

Hotchkiss, S. (2003). Why Is It Always aboutYou?: The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism.New York: Free Press.

Hunt, M. K., D. R. Hopko, R. Bare, C. W.Lejuez, and E. V. Robinson (2005).“Construct Validity of the Balloon AnalogRisk Task (BART): Associations with Psy-chopathy and Impulsivity,” Assessment 12,416–428.

Hmieleski, K. M., and R. A. Baron (2008).“Regulatory Focus and New Venture Per-formance: A Study of EntrepreneurialOpportunity Exploitation Under Conditionsof Risk versus Uncertainty,” Strategic Entre-preneurship Journal 2(4), 285–299.

——— (2009). “Entrepreneurs’ Optimism andNew Venture Performance: A Social Cogni-tive Perspective,” Academy of ManagementJournal 52, 473–488.

Hmieleski, K. M., J. C. Carr, and R. A. Baron(2015). “Integrating Discovery and CreationPerspectives of Entrepreneurial Action: TheRelative Roles of Founding CEO HumanCapital, Social Capital, and PsychologicalCapital in Contexts of Risk versusUncertainty,” Strategic EntrepreneurshipJournal 9(4), 289–312.

Hmieleski, K. M., M. S. Cole, and R. A. Baron(2012). “Shared Authentic Leadership andNew Venture Performance,” Journal ofManagement 38(5), 1476–1499.

Hmieleski, K. M., and A. C. Corbett (2006).“Proclivity for Improvisation as a Predictorof Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Journal ofSmall Business Management 44(1), 45–63.

Hmieleski, K. M., A. C. Corbett, and R. A.Baron (2013). “Entrepreneurs’ Improvisa-tional Behavior and Firm Performance: AStudy of Dispositional and EnvironmentalModerators,” Strategic EntrepreneurshipJournal 7(2), 138–150.

Humphrey, R. H. (2013). “The Benefits ofEmotional Intelligence and Empathy toEntrepreneurship,” Entrepreneurship ResearchJournal 3, 287–294.

Jonason, P. K., B. L. Koenig, and J. Tost(2010). “Living a Fast Life: The Dark Triadand Life History Theory,” Human Nature21, 428–442.

Jonason, P. K., and L. Krause (2013). “TheEmotional Deficits Associated with the DarkTriad Traits: Cognitive Empathy, AffectiveEmpathy, and Alexithymia,” Personalityand Individual Differences 55, 532–537.

Jonason, P. K., N. P. Li, and E. A. Teicher(2010). “Who Is James Bond? The DarkTriad as an Agentic Social Style,” IndividualDifferences Research 8, 111–120.

Jonason, P. K., N. P. Li, G. D. Webster, and D.P. Schmitt (2009). “The Dark Triad: Facilitat-ing a Short-Term Mating Strategy in Men,”European Journal of Personality 23, 5–18.

Jonason, P. K., and J. Tost (2010). “I Just Can-not Control Myself: The Dark Triad andSelf-Control,” Personality and IndividualDifferences 49(6), 611–615.

Jonason, P. K., and G. D. Webster (2010). “TheDirty Dozen: A Concise Measure of the DarkTriad,” Psychological Assessment 22, 420–432.

Jonason, P. K., G. D. Webster, D. P. Schmitt,N. P. Li, and L. Crysel (2012). “The Antiheroin Popular Culture: Life History Theory andthe Dark Triad Personality Traits,” Reviewof General Psychology 16, 192–199.

Jones, D. N. (2013). “What’s Mine Is Mine andWhat’s Yours Is Mine: The Dark Triad andGambling with Your Neighbor’s Money,” Jour-nal of Research in Personality 47, 563–571.

——— (2014). “Risk in the Face of Retribution:Psychopathic Individuals Persist in FinancialMisbehavior Among the Dark Triad,” Per-sonality and Individual Differences 67,109–113.

Jones, D. N., and A. J. Figueredo (2013). “TheCore of Darkness: Uncovering the Heart ofthe Dark Triad,” European Journal of Per-sonality 27, 521–531.

Jones, D. N., and D. L. Paulhus (2014).“Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): ABrief Measure of Dark Personality Traits,”Assessment 21, 28–41.

Kautonen, T., M. Gelderen, and M. Fink(2015). “Robustness of the Theory ofPlanned Behavior in Predicting Entrepre-neurial Intentions and Actions,” Entrepre-neurship Theory and Practice 39, 655–674.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1985). “The Dark Sideof Entrepreneurship,” Harvard BusinessReview 63, 160–167.


——— (1996). “The Anatomy of the Entrepre-neur: Clinical Observations,” Human Rela-tions 49, 853–883.

Klotz, A. C., K. M. Hmieleski, B. H. Bradley,and L. W. Busenitz (2014). “New VentureTeams: A Review of the Literature andRoadmap for Future Research,” Journal ofManagement 40, 226–255.

Klotz, A. C., and D. O. Neubaum (2016).“Research on the Dark Side of PersonalityTraits in Entrepreneurship: Observationsfrom an Organizational BehaviorPerspective,” Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice 40, 7–17.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., R. D. Zimmerman, and E.C. Johnson (2005). “Consequences of Indi-vidual’s Fit at Work: A Meta-analysis ofPerson-Job, Person-Organization, Person-Group, and Person-Supervisor Fit,” Person-nel Psychology 58, 281–342.

Krueger, N. F. (1993). “The Impact of Prior Entre-preneurial Exposure on Perceptions of NewVenture Feasibility and Desirability,” Entrepre-neurship Theory and Practice 15, 5–21.

Krueger, N. F., M. D. Jr., Reilly, and A. L.Carsrud (2000). “Competing Models ofEntrepreneurial Intentions,” Journal ofBusiness Venturing 15, 411–432.

Lance, C. E., and R. J. Vandenberg (2009). Sta-tistical and Methodological Myths andUrban Legends: Doctrine, Verity, and Fablein the Organizational and Social Sciences.New York: Routledge.

Lerner, D. (2016). “Behavioral Disinhibitionand Nascent Venturing: Relevance and Ini-tial Effects on Potential Resource Providers,”Journal of Business Venturing 31, 234–252.

Lewin, A. Y., and C. U. Stephens (1994). “CEOAttitudes as Determinants of OrganizationDesign: An Integrated Model,” Organiza-tion Studies 15, 183–212.

Leybman, M. J., D. C. Zuroff, and M. A.Fournier (2011). “A Five-Dimensional Modelof Individual Differences in Social ExchangeStyles,” Personality and Individual Differ-ences 51, 940–945.

Lu, J. F., D. Tjosvold, and K. Shi (2010). “TeamTraining in China: Testing and Applying theTheory of Cooperation and Competition,” Jour-nal of Applied Social Psychology 40, 101–134.

Magister, H. (2013). “The 4 People Who MadeEntrepreneurship Sexy,” Forbes. Retrievedfrom http://www.forbes.com/sites/holly-magister/2013/10/01/the-4-people-who-made-entrepreneurship-sexy

Malach-Pines, A., H. Levy, A. Utasi, and T. L.Hill (2005). “Entrepreneurs as Cultural Her-oes: A Cross-Cultural, InterdisciplinaryPerspective,” Journal of Managerial Psy-chology 20, 541–555.

Markman, G. D., and R. A. Baron (2003).“Person–Entrepreneurship Fit: Why SomePeople Are More Successful as Entrepre-neurs than Others,” Human Resource Man-agement Review 13, 281–301.

Mathieu, C., R. D. Hare, D. N. Jones, P.Babiak, and C. S. Neumann (2013). “FactorStructure of the B-Scan 360: A Measure ofCorporate Psychopathy,” PsychologicalAssessment 25, 288–293.

Mathieu, C., and �E. St-Jean (2013).“Entrepreneurial Personality: The Role ofNarcissism,” Personality and IndividualDifferences 55, 527–531.

Miller, J. D., L. R. Few, L. A. Seibert, A. Watts, A.Zeichner, and D. R. Lynam (2012). “An Exami-nation of the Dirty Dozen Measure: A Caution-ary Tale About the Costs of Brief Measures,”Psychological Assessment 24, 1048–1053.

Morgan, J., and D. Sisak (2016). “Aspiring toSucceed: A Model of Entrepreneurship andFear of Failure,” Journal of Business Ven-turing 31, 1–21.

Mycoskie, B. (2012). Start Something ThatMatters. New York: Random House.

Neter, J., M. H. Kutner, W. Wasserman, and C. J.Nachtscheim (1996). Applied Linear Regres-sion Models. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Nicolaou, N., S. Shane, G. Adi, M. Mangino,and J. Harris (2011). “A PolymorphismAssociated with Entrepreneurship: Evidencefrom Dopamine Receptor Candidate Genes,”Small Business Economics 36(2), 151–155.

O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., D. R. Forsyth, G. C. Banks,and M. A. McDaniel (2012). “A Meta-Analysis of the Dark Triad and Work Behav-ior: A Social Exchange Perspective,” Journalof Applied Psychology 97, 557–579.

O’Reilly III., C. A., B. Doerr, D. F. Caldwell,and J. A. Chatman (2014). “NarcissisticCEOs and Executive Compensation,” TheLeadership Quarterly 25(2), 218–231.

Paulhus, D. L., and K. M. Williams (2002). “TheDark Triad of Personality: Narcissism,Machiavellianism and Psychopathy,” Journalof Research in Personality 36(6), 556–563.

Perugini, M., M. Gallucci, F. Presaghi, and A.P. Ercolani (2003). “The Personal Norm ofReciprocity,” European Journal of Personal-ity 17, 251–283.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/hollymagister/2013/10/01/the-4-people-who-made-entrepreneurship-sexy



Piperopoulos, P., and D. Dimov (2015). “BurstBubbles or Build Steam? EntrepreneurshipEducation, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, andEntrepreneurial Intentions,” Journal ofSmall Business Management 53, 970–985.

Rauthmann, J. F., and G. P. Kolar (2012).“How ‘Dark’ Are the Dark Triad Traits?Examining the Perceived Darkness of Nar-cissism, Machiavellianism, and Psy-chopathy,” Personality and IndividualDifferences 53, 884–889.

Reynolds, P. D., and S. White (1997). TheEntrepreneurial Process: Economic Growth,Men, Women, and Minorities. Westport,CT: Quorum Books.

Rindova, V., D. Barry, and D. J. Ketchen (2009).“Entrepreneuring as Emancipation,” Acad-emy of Management Review 34, 477–491.

Robinson, J. (2014). “Do You Have What itTakes?,” Entrepreneur 42, 46–49.

Roff, D. A. (2001). Life History Evolution. Sun-derland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

Schiller, B. R., and P. E. Crewson (1997).“Entrepreneurial Origins: A LongitudinalInquiry,” Economic Inquiry 35, 523–531.

Schjoedt, L., and B. Bird (2014). “Control Vari-ables: Use, Misuse and Recommended Use,”in Handbook of Research Methods andApplications in Entrepreneurship and SmallBusiness. Eds. M. Br€annback and A. L. Cars-rud. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub-lishing, 136–155.

Shepherd, D. A. (2015). “Party On! A Call forEntrepreneurship Research That Is MoreInteractive, Activity Based, Cognitively Hot,Compassionate, and Prosocial,” Journal ofBusiness Venturing 30, 489–507.

Shepherd, D. A., H. Patzelt, and R. A. Baron(2013). “I Care About Nature But. . .Disengaging Sustainable Development Val-ues to Exploit Opportunities that Harm theNatural Environment,” Academy of Manage-ment Journal 56, 1251–1273.

Sherman, R. A., A. J. Figueredo, and D. C.Funder (2013). “The Behavioral Correlatesof Overall and Distinctive Life History Strat-egy,” Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 105, 873–888.

Smith, M. B., J. C. Wallace, and P. Jordan(2016). “When the Dark Ones BecomeDarker: How Promotion Focus Moderatesthe Effects of the Dark Triad on SupervisorPerformance Ratings,” Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior 37(2), 236–254.

Spector, P. E., and M. T. Brannick (2011).“Methodological Urban Legends: The Misuseof Statistical Control Variables,” Organiza-tional Research Methods 14, 287–305.

Staw, B. M. (1991). “Dressing Up Like anOrganization: When Psychological TheoriesCan Explain Organizational Action,” Journalof Management 17, 805–819.

Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell (2001). UsingMultivariate Statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Twenge, J. M., and W. K. Campbell (2010). TheNarcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age ofEntitlement. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Twenge, J. M., S. Konrath, J. D. Foster, W. K.Campbell, and B. J. Bushman (2008). “EgosInflating Over Time: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of the Narcissistic PersonalityInventory,” Journal of Personality 76, 875–902.

Van Praag, C. M., and P. Versloot (2007).“What Is the Value of Entrepreneurship: AReview of Recent Research,” Small BusinessEconomics 29(4), 351–382.

Verheul, I., J. Block, H. Larsson, I. Franken,and A. R. Thurik (2016). “Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Symptoms and Self-Employ-ment,” European Journal of Epidemiology31(8), 793–801.

Webb, J. W., L. Tihanyi, R. D. Ireland, and D.G. Sirmon (2009). “You Say Illegal, I SayLegitimate: Entrepreneurship in the Infor-mal Economy,” Academy of ManagementReview 34, 492–510.

Webster, R. L., and H. A. Harmon (2002).“Comparing Levels of Machiavellianism ofToday’s College Students with College Stu-dents of the 1960s,” Teaching BusinessEthics 6, 435–445.

Wilson, K., S. Demetrioff, and S. Porter (2008).“A Pawn by Any Other Name? Social Infor-mation Processing as a Function of Psycho-pathic Traits,” Journal of Research inPersonality 42, 1651–1656.

Zettler, I., and M. Solga (2013). “Not Enoughof a ‘Dark’ Trait? Linking Machiavellianismto Job Performance,” European Journal ofPersonality 27, 545–554.

Zhao, H., S. E. Seibert, and G. E. Hills (2005).“The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in theDevelopment of Entrepreneurial Intentions,”Journal of Applied Psychology 90, 1265–1272.

Zhao, H., S. E. Seibert, and G. T. Lumpkin(2010). “The Relationship of Personality toEntrepreneurial Intentions and Performance:A Meta-Analytic Review,” Journal of Man-agement 36, 381–404.


Item

Unp

roduct

ive

Entr

epre

neu

rial

Moti

ves

Pro

duct

ive

Entr

epre

neu

rial

Moti

ves

Under

gra

duat

es(n

5281)

MB

As

(n5

145)

Under

gra

duat

es(n

5281)

MB

As

(n5

145)

IfI

wer

eto

sta

rta

new

ven

ture

,m

ym

otiv

ati

onfo

rth

ebu

sin

ess

wou

ldin

clu

de

wa

nti

ng

itto

:1.

Ach

ieve

finan

cial

succ

ess,

even

ifit

isa

little

des

truct

ive

toso

ciet

y0.7

90.7

12

0.20

20.

362.

Max

imiz

epro

fits

,ev

enat

the

cost

of

emplo

yees

’w

ell-bei

ng

0.7

90.7

82

0.19

20.

233.

Gro

wquic

kly

,ev

enif

that

mea

ns

sacr

ific

ing

qual

ity

0.6

70.6

72

0.06

20.

024.

Ear

na

finan

cial

pro

fit

atal

lco

sts

0.6

50.6

90.

022

0.20

5.O

uts

ourc

ew

ork

tore

duce

cost

sas

much

asposs

ible

0.6

50.6

10.

072

0.04

6.G

ener

ate

valu

efo

rso

ciet

y2

0.14

20.

280.7

40.7

07.

Pro

duce

pro

duct

s/se

rvic

esth

aten

rich

the

lives

of

peo

ple

0.03

20.

260.7

60.7

18.

Dev

elop

acu

lture

inw

hic

hits

emplo

yees

valu

eth

eir

work

0.01

20.

170.6

90.7

49.

Be

adm

ired

for

the

valu

eth

atit

adds

toth

eco

mm

unity

20.

042

0.00

0.7

60.6

110

.A

ttra

ctem

plo

yees

who

valu

eth

em

issi

on

of

the

com

pan

yas

though

itw

ere

thei

row

n2

0.17

20.

110.7

30.8

6

a In

rela

tion

toth

eitem

sas

soci

ated

with

valu

eap

pro

pri

atio

n,n

oas

sert

ion

isbei

ng

mad

eab

outp

rofit-dri

ven

entr

epre

neu

rship

bei

ng

nec

essa

rily

unpro

duct

ive.

Sim

-ply

,w

ith

valu

eap

pro

pri

atio

nch

arac

teri

zing

unpro

duct

ive

entr

epre

neu

rship

and

motive

s,se

ekin

gto

exte

rnal

ize

cost

sap

pro

pri

ates

oth

ers’

valu

e.In

rela

tion

toth

eitem

sas

soci

ated

with

valu

ecr

eation:n

osu

gges

tion

ism

ade

that

thes

ear

eth

eonly

poss

ible

mea

ns

tocr

eative

valu

e,th

atth

epro

fit-m

otive

cannotb

epro

duct

ive,

orth

atfo

ren

trep

reneu

rship

tobe

pro

duct

ive

itm

ust

achie

veal

lthes

een

ds.

Sim

ply

,iti

sunam

big

uousth

atsa

iditem

sin

dic

ate

valu

ecr

eation

rath

erth

anap

pro

pri

atio

nm

otive

s.O

vera

ll,in

term

soft

he

centr

alth

esis

oft

he

pap

er,n

ewve

ntu

res

form

edto

diffe

ring

deg

rees

on

the

bas

isth

ese

two

sets

ofm

otiva

tions,

are

aptt

oge

ner

ate

(orap

pro

pri

-at

e)va

lue

todiffe

rentd

egre

es.

bThe

ques

tion

stem

was

phra

sed

gener

ally

such

that

the

item

sco

uld

be

applie

dto

alli

ndiv

idual

s:th

ose

hav

ing

notb

egun

the

entr

epre

neu

rial

pro

cess

,those

consi

d-

erin

gve

ntu

ring,

and

those

who

hav

ebeg

un

the

entr

epre

neu

rial

pro

cess

(indep

enden

tofw

het

her

they

hav

ere

ached

asso

ciat

edoper

atio

nal

mile

stones

).cThe

item

sre

pre

senting

unpro

duct

ive

entr

epre

neu

rial

motive

s(i

tem

s1–

5)an

dpro

duct

ive

entr

epre

neu

rial

motive

s(i

tem

s6–

10)ar

ere

spec

tive

lyin

dic

ated

by

thei

rco

rres

pondin

gbold

fact

orlo

adin

gs.

Ap

pen

dix

Confi

rmat

ory

Pri

nci

pal

Com

ponen

tsM

atri

xof

Unp

roduct

ive

and

Pro

duct

ive

Entr

epre

neu

rial

Moti

ves

Usi

ng

Var

imax

Rota

tion

for

Subsa

mp

les

of

Ear

ly-S

tage

Nas

cent

Entr

epre

neu

rsa,b

,c


doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12296 the dark triad and nascent … · 2016-10-28 · concern for long-term...

Documents