ABSTRACT
Recently, there has been a burgeoning literature on leaders who exhibit grandiose narcissism, Machiavellianism, and manifestations of psychopathology. Two important findings are that these “dark-triad” leaders are reasonably common because the traits predict leader emergence, and that the traits are associated with harm for organizations and their members. The juxtaposition of commonality and harm seemingly challenges assumptions about performance-enhancing organizational adaptations and begs the obvious question of why and how psychologically toxic individuals can rise to and remain in powerful positions. I argue that labels applied to leaders implying darkness or dysfunction divert attention in unproductive ways from the benefits of these traits and bias research findings. I present arguments as to why many people readily choose what research suggests are psychologically problematic people to follow. Fixing the many leadership crises besetting modern societies requires more attention to why people rise to positions of power and, more controversially, teaching people to embrace, rather than shun, behaviors and tactics that actually create power and career success. If power is to be used for good, good people need to know and willingly use the tools of power, even if, or possibly particularly if, such tactics are also used by their opposites.
