The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0048-3486.htm

Impact of
Impact of psychopathy on psychopathy
employee creativity via work on employee
creativity
engagement and negative
socioemotional behavior in 1655

public health sector Received 15 February 2019

Revised 22 July 2019
19 September 2019
Role of abusive supervision 21 November 2019
Accepted 12 December 2019

Ali Nawaz Khan

School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Naseer Abbas Khan
School of Management, Huaiyin Institute of Technology, Huai’an, China
Ali Ahmad Bodla
School of Economics and Management,
Tongji University, Shanghai, China, and
Summan Gul
University of Sargodha, Sargodha, Pakistan

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of psychopathy on employees’ creativity
through the mediating role of work engagement and negative socioemotional behavior (NSEB). It also
attempts to investigate the moderating effect of abusive supervision on the relationship between psychopathy
and work engagement, psychopathy and NSEB.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected at two-time intervals with a time-lag of three
months. The final sample comprised of 267 public sector paramedical staff and supervisors in different
hospitals from the southern provinces of China.
Findings – The study results show that individuals with a high level of psychopathic tendencies show a
higher NSEB. Moreover, abusive supervision simulates negative social and emotional behaviors of those
employees with psychopathic tendencies, which inhibit the emergence of novel and useful ideas.
Originality/value – This study is distinctive from earlier studies by presenting novel findings that
employees with psychopathic tendencies are reactive to abusive supervision. Additionally, this study
presents valuable implications and future research directions.
Keywords Psychopathy, Work engagement, Quantitative, Abusive supervision, Employee creativity,
Negative socioemotional behaviour
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In the field of personality psychology, scholars remain very curious about the dark side of
human personality. Therefore, scholars and practitioners intensively studied individual
differences based on the dark characteristics of personality (Nathanson et al., 2006). The
academic community classifies the various characteristics of personality, which display
dark features, including narcissism, machiavellianism and psychopathy (Hare and
Neumann, 2010). Earlier studies on the relationship between dark personality characteristics Personnel Review
Vol. 49 No. 8, 2020
and differences in individual creativity find that narcissism leads to the greater difference in pp. 1655-1675
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
This work was supported by grant from the National Science Foundation of China (71950410629). DOI 10.1108/PR-02-2019-0072
PR self-reported creative outcomes, while the associated evidence for machiavellianism and
49,8 psychopathy are limited ( Jonason et al., 2015).
In this way, Bamber et al. (2017) argue that creative people are eager to grow, capable of
solving problems and innovative in thinking. When creativity is seen as a process, it is
termed as a raw ingredient of innovation and referred to the creation of unique, novel and
useful ideas (Amabile, 1983; Bos-Nehles et al., 2017; Khan and Ali, 2018). Several studies
1656 revealed that personality characteristics affect creativity. For example, Steinert et al. (2017)
argue that people with a high tendency of psychopathy are unwilling to share their success
with others because of their antisocial characteristics and are considered less creative.
On the other hand, Peng et al. (2017) notice that those who do not like socializing and prefer
to live alone are more creative because they pay more attention to their work.
Therefore, personality is a significant predictor of creativity and performance at the
workplace. Psychopathy is a personality disorder, which promotes antisocial behavior
and bullying. Psychopathy also affects the well-being of individuals who witness it
( Jackson et al., 2002). Overtime, antisocial behavior can erode the social atmosphere at the
workplace and can lead to less productive, engage and creative behavior, and enhance
turnover intention (Farrell and Shafiei, 2012; Bano et al., 2019). Moreover, psychopathy can
lead to aggressive behavior, not always under control, and may lead to unpleasant actions.
People with psychopathic characteristics enter the organization by using manipulation
strategies in tests and interviews. In order to achieve desired goals, they show artificial
charm, manipulation and use pawns to gain benefits.
In this context, the influence of personality on individual creativity is not simple; it is
complex and beyond the direct causal relationship. Therefore, some previous studies show
different results of self-reported creativity in music, drama and dance disciplines
(Galang et al., 2016; Cao, Khan, Ali and Khan, 2019) concerning an individual personality.
Sigala and Chalkiti (2015) argue that creativity should not only be limited to introduce new
approaches but also beneficial to an organization. In the public administration literature,
scholars rarely notice the effects of dark, aggressive and even criminal personality traits on
individual creativity (Cropley et al., 2010). People with psychopathic tendencies struggle
with issues of less compassion and sympathy (Hare and Neumann, 2010). Negative emotion
dominates their behavior that inhibits positive social behaviors (Haxby et al., 2000;
Cao, Khan, Zaigham and Khan, 2019). Although there is considerable overlap between the
characteristics of dark personality traits (Nathanson et al., 2006; Khan, Xiongfei and Pitafi,
2019), it is not very simple to assess the impact of personality on creativity through direct
causality. Therefore, this study introduces two mediators, work engagement and negative
socioemotional behavior (NSEB), and a boundary condition of abusive supervision in
assessing the impact of psychopathy on employee creativity (see Figure 1).
Hoon Song et al. (2012) find that work engagement plays a useful intermediary role in the
relationship between leadership and performance. Similarly, positive and negative emotions
also conduit the relationship between personality and performance (Härtel et al., 2008;
Madera and Smith, 2009). As mentioned earlier, this study uses abusive supervision as a
boundary condition to determine the impact of dark personality traits (i.e. psychopathy) on
work engagement, NSEB and creativity.
Recently, abusive supervision is found to be an important boundary condition in the
relationship between psychopathy and work engagement (Hurst et al., 2017). Abusive
supervision includes the continued perception of non-violent aggression by managers
(Tepper, 2000). The aggressive attitude of supervisors has a strong influence on the welfare
and behavior of employees compared to aggression from any other sources at the workplace
(Hershcovis and Barling, 2010; Khan and Khan, 2019). In the context of abusive supervision,
psychopathy and creativity, one might think of some questions: does abusive supervision
stimulate the negative emotional behavior of psychopaths at the workplace? Does workplace
 Impact of
Work Engagement
psychopathy
on employee
creativity

Abusive 1657
Psychopathy
Supervision Creativity

Negative Socioemotional Figure 1.

Behavior Research framework

bullying by abusive supervisors inhibits employee creativity and reduces organizational

productivity and innovation?
To answer such questions, the role of the human resource department is critical because
it deals with development agenda. Usually, the human resource department is responsible
for recruiting, selecting and developing valuable human capital for an organization. Babiak
and Hare (2006) suggest that psychopaths are not only the trouble makers of colleagues,
subordinates and beneficiaries but also the trouble makers of the organization. They pursue
their self-interest rather than the overall interests of the organization (Reidy et al., 2011).
Therefore, human resource management is more relevant for dealing with problems raised
by people with psychopathic tendencies in the organization. Human resource authorities put
more efforts into the places, especially in the public health sector, where beneficiaries are
highly vulnerable than any other organization.
In this regard, this study contributes to the human resource management literature by
highlighting the issues that may hinder the smooth working of first aid workers in
emergency and overall patient care. Additionally, this study also helps human resource
management authorities in the public health department how to identify the individual with
psychopathic tendencies present in their workforce.

2. Theory and hypotheses

The theory of purposeful work behavior emphasizes that individuals are motivated to pursue
higher-order goals that drove from the five-factor model of personality (Barrick and Mount,
2013). Despite the many reasons for individuals to adopt and pursue these broad goals,
individual personality traits are seen as important determinants of the specific goals. Overtime,
goals of personal attention are usually consistent and have meaningful connections in different
work environments that can be distinguished from other individuals because the personality
is relatively stable throughout adulthood (Roberts and Mroczek, 2008; Hameed, Khan,
Sheikh, Islam, Rasheed and Naeem, 2019). Therefore, purposefulness is termed as a dynamic
motivational mechanism that influences the pursuit of hidden goals and personality traits,
which can stimulate goals achievements. On the other hand, meaningfulness means that
individuals believe in invaluable and useful actions (Kahn, 1990; Khan, Ali, Khan and Jehan,
2019; Khan et al., 2018). When practitioners believe that work is at least purposeful and
meaningful (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003), personality traits affect the significance of work by
pursuing higher levels of hidden goals and work characteristics. In this regard, psychopathy is
considered to be the worst characteristics of the dark traits which is more closely linked to
various cognitive deficiencies and interests, thereby undermining useful creative outcome
PR (Galang et al., 2016). The theory of purposeful work behavior, first, provides a theoretical basis
49,8 for describing personality traits and psychological state. Therefore, using this theory can make
a meaningful interpretation of the characteristics of psychopathy. Second, the core aim of this
theory is to strive for achieving meaningful goals. Thus, creativity is the cornerstone of work
performance (Amabile, 1983, 1988). Finally, the current study uses new mediators (i.e. work
engagement and NSEB) and moderator (i.e. abusive supervision) that psychologically stimulate
1658 individual personality in both positive and negative ways (Kim et al., 2014).
In general, the impact of research variables adds a new perspective to understand
the theory of purposeful work behavior in the health sector. The purpose of selecting
paramedics as occupational group for this study is to examine the impact of personality on
decision-making process because paramedics decision making is a multi-faceted process
that can affect patient safety. Past public management scholars overlooked the influence of
personality on paramedics creativity (Kim and Yoon, 2015; Pitel and Gurnakova, 2016;
Islam et al., 2019). Therefore, examining paramedics that take action in difficult and complex
situations can contribute to the literature. Training paramedics to be knowledgeable, agile,
logical, calm, compassionate and creative ensures patients the best possible care. Hence,
public health management literature requires scholars to conduct in-depth investigations to
determine the impact of personality traits (i.e. psychopathy) on creativity.

2.1 Psychopathy and creativity

Psychopathy is a personality disorder that is widely discussed in the personality and
management literature. Although scholars have different views on the definition of
psychopathy, many scholars agree that psychopathy can lead to various negative
consequences (such as interpersonal manipulation, callous effect and erratic lifestyle).
Psychopathy is considered to be the worst dark trait, which represents a relationship
with different cognitive deficiencies and creativity ( Jonason et al., 2015; Galang et al.,
2016). Individuals with a higher score in psychopathy lack self-control and are impulsive
( Jonason et al., 2010; Jones and Paulhus, 2011). On the other hand, motivating work
characteristics influence behavioral and attitudinal outcomes by affecting three key mental
states: the empirical significance of work, the empirical responsibility of other work
outcomes and the knowledge of work activities outcomes (Hackman and Oldham, 1975).
Individuals with a higher psychopathic tendency may be impulsive and lack self-control
( Jonason et al., 2010; Jones and Paulhus, 2011), which may undermine creative cognitive
needs by limiting attention and encouraging eagerness to achieve (Guilford, 1967).
Psychopathy can be prima facie evidence of the pathological nature, which may lead to a
lack of creativity. It undermines the cognitive abilities required for creative tasks (Guilford,
1967). Martindale et al. (1996) argue that creative people are overreactive to any emotional or
moral stimuli, so a conducive work environment is critical to developing creative solutions.
In particular to the public health sector, emergency health professionals and paramedics
need to be prepared to take action in different situations. In this regard, knowledgeable,
agile, logical, calm, compassionate and creative paramedics can effectively contribute to
patients care. Healthcare employees every day face new challenges because every patient
requires unique and different healthcare.
In the past two decades, the practitioner and academia highlighted significant
psychopathy at the workplace. Does psychopathy support the creation of novel ideas?
This question draws the attention of scholars to investigate the association between
psychopathy and creativity. Consistent with some previous studies, this study also
believes that psychopathy is a dark personality trait that limits the perception of novelty
(Guy et al., 2005; Jonason et al., 2015; Chiang et al., 2017). Therefore, the hypothesis can be
postulated as follows:
H1. Psychopathy is negatively associated with employee creativity.
2.2 Mediating role of work engagement Impact of
Work engagement is a positive, affective-motivational state of fulfillment that is characterized psychopathy
by vigor, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). Kahn (1990) developed the on employee
concept of work engagement when he was investigating Summer camp employees. However,
the existing literature has different definitions of work engagement in terms of time, context creativity
and field of study (Shuck and Wollard, 2010). Early scholars investigated the relationship
between psychopathic scores in terms of criminal activity, drug use, gambling and deviant 1659
work behavior (Harris et al., 1991; Jones, 2014; Sheikh et al., 2019). They found that individuals
with higher psychopathy score inclined to deviant work behavior. The results of previous
studies indicate that people with a personality disorder tend to have higher levels of deviant
behavior (Harris et al., 1991; Jones, 2014), which means that they are not often involved in work
activities. Thus, this study can propose a hypothesis as follows:
H2. Psychopathy is negatively associated with work engagement.
Similarly, psychopathy leads to superficial charm (Wilson, 2010) rather than a genuine
commitment to accomplishing a task. For instance, Cliford (2016) argues that people with
psychopathic tendencies are often charming and cunning with a sense of self-worth and
pathological liars. They show reluctance to take responsibility for their wrong actions and
lack of compassion. On the other hand, some researchers have refute these arguments by
arguing that all psychopaths do not have the same dark characteristics of personality and
sometimes show positive attitudes (e.g. energy and concentration), which lead to work
engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002; Lam et al., 2018). According to the theory of purposeful
work behavior, an employee’s personality and work characteristics can predict motivating
behavior that form perception and actual control of performance goals (Barrick et al., 2002).
Therefore, the underlying assumption of the theory is that purposeful work behavior refers to
the behavior that guides employees to achieve their goals (Barrick et al., 2002; Hameed, Khan,
Islam, Sheikh and Khan, 2019). Thus, the higher goal of creative work is the main requirement
of the theory that can be achieved through a higher level of employee participation in assigned
work. The extant research uses an intermediary effect of commitment, effectiveness and social
support to determine the connection between personality and creative work (Karatepe and
Olugbade, 2009; Stajkovic et al., 2009; Albrecht and Marty, 2017). In this regard, we consider
work engagement as a link to the dark personality trait (i.e. psychopathy) and creativity.
Hence, we assume the following hypothesis:
H3. Work engagement negatively mediates the relationship between psychopathy and
employee creativity.

2.3 Mediating role of NSEB

NSEB refers to behaviors that express frustration, reject other opinions and criticize
suggestions (Baysinger et al., 2014). These negative behaviors are related to disagreement,
unfriendliness and frustration (Bales, 1970). Some studies find that individuals with
psychopathic tendencies often lose control over emotional expression, whether the
stimulus is positive or negative (Fowles, 2000; Herpertz et al., 2001). It is also revealed that
people with psychopathic tendencies often express negative emotions (Verona et al., 2012).
Hicks and Patrick (2006) notice that the interpersonal emotional aspects of psychopathy are
positively related to negative emotions, while the social deviation of psychopaths is
positively associated with negative emotions. The theory of purposeful work behavior
suggests that the social and job characteristics of work interact dynamically with the work
goal (from individual personality traits) by providing a background for individuals to
explain the importance or value of the work (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003; Grant and Ashford,
2008). On the other hand, some researchers found that individuals with higher psychopathic
PR scores express negative emotions such as anger, sadness and fear (Blair et al., 2001;
49,8 Verona et al., 2012). Thus, in this study, we postulate our fourth hypothesis as follows:
H4. Psychopathy is positively associated with NSEB.
Keeping in mind the relationship between psychopathy and NSEB, this study examines how
the NSEB conduits the effect of psychopathy on creativity. Baysinger et al. (2014)
1660 investigate the impact of personality on NSEB at a group level. Similarly, Mahaffey and
Marcus (2006) find that psychopaths seem calmer and show fewer emotions as compared to
the individual with normal personality traits. However, on the other hand, some scholars
believe that the emotions of psychopathic individuals depend on the nature of the stimuli
(Fowles, 2000; Herpertz et al., 2001). Some argue that people with psychopathic traits do
not express emotions with facial expressions (Blair et al., 2001; Verona et al., 2012), while
Hare (1999) argues that psychopaths exhibit superficial charm and masks their negative
emotions. Purposeful work behavior theory emphasizes that meaningful work can be done
effectively by those who have a higher level of positive social and emotional well-being at
the workplace (Barrick and Mount, 2013). Similarly, some previous studies also suggest that
personality traits and different emotions influence the process of creativity and the
interaction of prosocial emotions with creativity (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003; Grant and
Ashford, 2008). Based on the above arguments, we propose the following assumption:
H5. NSEB negatively mediates the relationship between psychopathy and employee
creativity.

2.4 The moderating role of abusive supervision

In academic literature, the behaviors of supervisors are discussed in different contexts, such
as employee satisfaction, effectiveness and performance (Tepper, 2000; Janssen, 2001;
Martinko et al., 2013). Abusive supervision is a phenomenon referred to as the expression of
non-violent aggression (Tepper, 2000). Psychopathy and abusive supervision represents
the dark side of personalities, which makes this study interesting to examine negative
personality traits together in the context of employee creativity. In this regard, some
researchers suggest that psychopaths are calm and emotionless (Mahaffey and Marcus,
2006), and some others argue that psychopaths have traits of manipulation, artificial charm
and reactive to stimuli (Hare, 1999; Hicks and Patrick, 2006). In particular, paramedics
experience stress every day that can upset their physical, behavioral and emotional
performance at work (Siegall and McDonald, 2004; Rodwell et al., 2014). Stress stimulates
unhealthy performance and impacts negatively on employee creativity (Bernardo et al.,
2016; Hurst et al., 2017). These stimuli include psychosocial stress from the family,
complaints from colleagues and requirements from supervisors.
The theory of purposeful work behavior emphasizes that individual personality
characteristics lead to purposeful goals, and when motivation association with work
characteristics is consistent with these purposeful motivational strings, individuals
experience a meaningful state of mind. In turn, experiencing meaningfulness leads to a
task-specific inspirational process that affects work goal achievement (Barrick and Mount,
2013). In the context of psychopathy, scholars have different opinions. Hurst et al. (2017)
argue that psychopaths are productive at the workplace and experience isolation to provide
creative solutions. On the other hand, Cliford (2016) believes that psychopaths are selfish
and cunning, and they lack empathy and motivational factors to express purposeful work
behavior. Clarke (2005) found that psychopaths are fundamentally abusers who feel
pleasure in hurting feelings (Clarke, 2005). Theory of purposeful work behavior encourages
motivational behaviors, which are noteworthy because the impact of situational needs may
outweigh the stimulating effects of personality traits such as threats of termination, lack of
resources (e.g. time, money and supervisor support) and even skills abilities (Barrick and Impact of
Mount, 1991). When this happens, the job characteristics are similar to a strong situation, psychopathy
which reduces the freedom and choice of workers in deciding whether or not to perform the on employee
behavior (Barrick and Mount, 1991).
In an abusive work environment, external rewards or threats can overwhelm individual creativity
differences and intrinsic rewards associated with the pursuit of socially satisfactory work or
meaning. Some previous studies suggest that negative emotions intensify due to the 1661
rudeness of supervisors (Bernardo et al., 2016; Scheuer et al., 2016). Similarly, this study
assumes that work engagement is an effective mechanism for linking psychopathy to
employee creativity and is also subject to abusive supervision. Thus, this study can suggest
the following hypothesis:
H6. Abusive supervision moderates the relationship between psychopathy and work
engagement in this way, when the degree of abusive supervision is higher rather
than lower, the negative relationship becomes stronger.
H7. Abusive supervision moderates mediating influence of work engagement on
psychopathy–employee creativity relationship in such a way that the mediating
effect becomes stronger when the degree of abusive supervision is higher rather
than lower.
In recent years, many large-scale business scandals related to workplace bullying caught
the attention of organizational leadership, and policymakers about management ethics and
ethical dilemmas are related to modern institutions. In this regard, the public healthcare
sector is not immune to these scandals. Various public inquiries into unethical scandals are
evidence of workplace bullying in the public sector (Hutchinson and Jackson, 2015).
The outcomes of these inquiries highlight the prevalence of management and worker
bullying and widespread care failures, suggesting that bullying may be a feature of broader
institutional failure. Abusing and bullying are common practices in psychopaths to
humiliate colleagues and subordinates (Clarke et al., 2012). Furthermore, some scholars
argue that abusive supervision leads to a lower level of motivation, a reduction in
commitment, a disruption of family–work relationships and an excessive increase in
psychological stress (Glaser et al., 2015). This psychological disorder under abusive
supervision adversely affects employee behavior and commitment (Liu et al., 2012). In this
way, this study assumes that abusive supervision can stimulate undesirable social and
emotional behavior. In this regard, the following hypotheses can be proposed:
H8. Abusive supervision moderates the relationship between psychopathy and NSEB on
psychopathy–employee creativity relationship in such a way that when the
degree of abusive supervision is higher rather than lower, the negative relationship
becomes stronger.
H9. Abusive supervision moderates mediating influence of NSEB on psychopathy–employee
creativity relationship in such a way that the mediating effect becomes stronger when
the degree of abusive supervision is higher rather than lower.

3. Method
3.1 Sample and procedure
The current study sample consists of paramedics and their supervisors from different
public hospitals in the southern provinces of China. Due to the psychopathic traits of the
employees, the identity of employees has been kept anonymous. Data were collected
through structured questionnaires at meetings that were face to face with respondents by
using the random sampling method. Two bilingual researchers translated the questionnaire
PR from English into Chinese and then back-translated the questionnaire into English (Brislin,
49,8 1980). One interpreter provided the initial translation, and another interpreter did the back
translation. The comparison between the original version and the translated version showed
only minor changes, which were addressed with discussion. Data were collected at two-time
intervals with a time-lag of three months. In this study, a questionnaire was designed using
the Likert scale to collect the data. In the first wave of the study, the questionnaire was
1662 distributed to 1,120 employees and their supervisors. The revised-PCL checklist was made
part of the questionnaire to understand whether psychopathic features exist in a particular
work environment. Based on this measurement and specific items related to psychopathy,
the study asked supervisors to evaluate the traits of their subordinates on three scales
(1 ¼ not present; 2 ¼ somewhat present; and 3 ¼ present). Thus, in the measurement,
subordinates were rated on three elements and a score of 0, 1 or 2 by their supervisors.
Generally, subordinates who obtained score 75 percent or higher on a general psychopathy
checklist was considered to be a psychopath. Therefore, the maximum possible score could
be 16 (2×8), and the minimum score could be 0 (0×8). According to the usual psychopathic
classification procedures, scores of 13 points and above were used to indicate the presence of
psychopaths in the organization. Similarly, scores obtained from 9 to 12 points, indicating
that there were some extent psychopathic traits in those employees. In this study, the
employee with a score of 8 or less on the psychopathy measurement scale was considered a
normal employee. The 723 employees rated work engagement, NSEB and demographics in
the first wave of data collection. In the second wave of data collection, supervisors rated the
creativity of only those employees who obtained a higher and medium score of
psychopathy. Similarly, employees with high or medium psychopathy scores were
contacted to provide their feedback on abusive supervision. The questionnaires with
incomplete and missing information were excluded, so the final sample was 267 employees
and supervisors; the response rate was about 37 percent. The majority of respondents were
male (57 percent), while the majority of respondents were between the ages of 31 and 40.
Most employees have a graduate degree (45 percent), a postgraduation degree (35 percent),
and most respondents have more than seven years of work experience (see Table I).

3.2 Measurement
This study used 12 items PCL-R checklist developed and adopted by Robert Hare (2016) to
measure the psychopathy. Similarly, we use the nine items Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
(Schaufeli et al., 2006) to measure the work engagement. To measure the NSEB, this study
used five items version adopted from Green and Taber (1980). Similarly, short version of ten
items is adopted from Aryee et al. (2007) to measure perceptions of abusive supervision.
This study used four-item employee creativity scale adopted from Farmer et al. (2003).

Variables n Percentage Variables n Percentage

Gender Qualification
Male 152 56.9 Under-graduate 27 10.10
Female 115 43.1 Graduate 120 44.90
Age Master’s 92 34.50
Up to 20 15 05.60 MS/PhD 28 10.50
Between 21 and 30 62 23.20 Experience (years)
Between 31 and 40 107 40.10 Up to 1 18 06.70
Between 41 and 50 62 23.20 1–3 19 07.20
Above 50 21 07.90 3–5 52 19.50
Table I. 5–7 85 31.80
Demographics Above 7 93 34.80
4. Data analysis Impact of
In data analysis, this study used AMOS 21 and SPSS version 19. Table II shows reliabilities, psychopathy
means and standard deviations for each variable. Cronbach α is given in parenthesis. on employee
A correlation coefficient above 0.70 can enhance the likelihood of multicollinearity
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). However, in our results, the correlation between any two creativity
variables is lower than the benchmark, indicating that all measures in this study are suitable
for regression analysis. 1663
4.1 Measurement models
In this study, we followed the recommendations proposed by Podsakoff et al. (2003) to
reduce the impact of common method bias. By creating a psychological separation between
variables, we use a variety of instructions and filler items. Similarly, statistical remedies
were used to control common method biases by performing a series of CFA tests on our data
sets. This study calculated the fit index to understand the model fit in our data set
(Hair et al., 2009). For good model fit, the values of χ2/df should be less than 2.5 (Arbuckle,
2006), the values of the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and comparative fit index (CFI) should be
higher than 0.9 (Bentler, 1990). Moreover, the model is considered fit, if the values of root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) are less than 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1998).
In the present study, all items were loaded on their latent factors during CFA testing on
the full model (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). This indicates that the psychometric
characteristics of the measurement model are very good, as shown in Table III. Moreover,
the common method bias was tested by conducting Harman’s (1976) single-factor test to
account for CFA, where all variables were permitted to load onto one factor; the model
represents a poor fit. This suggests that a single factor does not represent the majority of the
variance (Alfes et al., 2013). The uniqueness and fitness of the study variables were tested by
a series of nested model comparisons. Particularly, the full measurement of all latent
variables was compared with the range of alternative models, as shown in Table III.

Constructs Mean SD NSEB PSY WE AS EC

NSEB 2.59 1.42 (0.97)

PSY 3.14 1.13 0.438** (0.96)
WE 3.59 1.20 −0.604** −0.457** (0.97)
AS 2.26 1.42 0.556** 0.138* −0.263** (0.90)
EC 3.67 1.01 −0.303** −0.150* 0.402** −0.204** (0.93) Table II.
Notes: NSB, negative socioemotional behavior; PSY, psychopathy; WE, work engagement; AS, abusive Descriptive statistics,
supervision; EC, employees creativity. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. Cronbach’s α values appear α and correlation
in parentheses on the diagonal. *p o0.05; **p o0.01 matrix

Models χ2 (df ) χ2diff. (dfdiff.) χ2/df TLI CFI RMSEA

Five-factor model 1,205 (650) – 1.85 0.962 0.965 0.056

Four-factor Model 1: PSY and NSEB combined 2,826 (655) 1,621 (5***) 4.32 0.863 0.853 0.11
Four-factor Model 2: PSY and WE combined 4,332 (655) 3,127 (5***) 6.61 0.768 0.751 0.14
Three-factor model: PSY, WE and NSEB combined 5,848 (659) 4,643 (9***) 8.87 0.673 0.650 0.17
Two-factor model: PSY, AS, WE and NSEB combined 8,472 (662) 7,267 (12***) 12.98 0.508 0.476 0.21
Table III.
Single-factor model 9,531(664) 8,326 (14***) 14.35 0.441 0.407 0.24 Results of
Notes: AS, abusive supervision; WE, work engagement; NSB, negative socioemotional behavior; TLI, confirmatory
Tucker–Lewis index; CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation. ***po0.001 factor analyses
PR The results of the different tests show that the proposed model with five distinguished
49,8 variables is more suitable than the other models. These results indicate the uniqueness and
appropriateness of our research variables.

4.2 Hypothesis testing

In testing H1–H5, hierarchical multiple regression was used in this study. To test H6–H9,
1664 we use hierarchical moderated regression. In the present study, a moderated mediation test
was conducted by following the steps suggested by Preacher et al. (2007). For interactive
testing, all independent variables of the study were standardized in all analyses, and all
dependent variables were unstandardized in order to minimize the likelihood of
multicollinearity that might affect the outcome (Aiken and West, 1991).
For mediation analysis, we used the approach proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). First,
independent variable (i.e. psychopathy) should have significant relationship with outcome
variable (e.g. employee creativity); second, the independent variable (e.g. psychopathy) should
have a significant relationship with mediating variables (e.g. work engagement and NSEB);
third, mediating variables (e.g. Work engagement and NSEB) should have independent and
significant relationship with the outcome variable (e.g. employee creativity). Forth, the
independent variable (e.g. psychopathy) should become insignificant or drop its significance
when the independent variable (i.e. psychopathy) and mediating variables (e.g. work
engagement and NSEB) both come into the regression equation.
H1, H2 and H4 stated that psychopathy has a negative relation to employee creativity
(H1), a negative relation to work engagement (H2) and a positive relation with NSEB (H4).
H3 indicates that work engagement mediates the relationship between psychopathy and
employee creativity. H5 states that NSEB mediates the relationship between psychopathy
and employee creativity.
Results in the M4 of Table IV describe that psychopathy is significantly related to
creativity, which fulfills the first condition required for mediation. The M5 of Table IV
further indicates that work engagement and M5 of Table V NSEB are significantly related
to employee creativity. M1 of Table IV reveals that psychopathy is significantly associated
with work engagement, and M1 of Table V shows that psychopathy is significantly
related to negative SEB. Thus, H3 and H5 are supported. Finally, when psychopathy is
entered with mediating variables (e.g. work engagement and negative SEB) into the model
simultaneously (M6 of Tables IV and V ), psychopathy becomes insignificant, indicating

Dependent variables
Work engagement Employees’ creativity
Predictors M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6

Age 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.12

Gender −0.05 −0.07 −0.08 −0.06 −0.01 −0.01
Education −0.11 −0.09 −0.09 −0.11 −0.04 −0.04
Experience −0.10 −0.10 −0.11 −0.10 −0.10 −0.11
Psychopathy (PSY) −0.47*** −0.48*** −0.45*** −0.13* −0.08
Abusive supervision (AS) −0.18** −0.17**
PSY × AS −0.05
Work engagement 0.40*** 0.44***
Table IV.
Mediating role of R2 0.26*** 0.280** 0.27 0.05* 0.13*** 0.19****
work engagement and ΔR
2
0.26*** 0.02** 0.01 0.05* 0.13*** 0.14****
moderating role of F 18.702*** 11.449** 0.912 2.84* 12.171* 45.853***
abusive supervision Notes: *po 0.05; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001
 Dependent variable
Impact of
Negative socioemotional behavior Employees’ creativity psychopathy
Predictors M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 on employee
Age −0.02 −0.01 −0.01 0.10 0.10 0.10 creativity
Gender 0.01 −0.00 −0.02 −0.06 −0.04 −0.05
Education 0.11 0.07 0.06 −0.11 −0.06 −0.07
Experience −0.08 −0.04 −0.04 −0.10 −0.12 −0.12 1665
Psychopathy (PSY) 0.45*** 0.38*** 0.38*** −0.13* −0.01
Abusive supervision (AS) 0.50*** 0.48***
PSY × AS 0.15** Table V.
Mediating role of
Negative socioemotional behavior −0.28*** −0.29***
negative
R2 0.21*** 0.44*** 0.46** 0.05* 0.11*** 0.12**** socioemotional
ΔR2 0.21*** 0.23*** 0.02** 0.05* 0.11*** 0.07**** behavior and
F 13.900*** 111.241*** 10.360 2.84* 6.869*** 19.025*** moderating role of
Notes: *p o0.05; **p o 0.01; ***p o 0.001 abusive supervision

that work engagement and NSEB mediate the relationship between psychopathy and
employee creativity.

4.3 Moderating analysis

H6 proposed that abusive supervision moderates the relationship between psychopathy and
work engagement. As shown in Model 3 (M3) of Table IV, the interaction between
psychopathy and abusive supervision on work engagement is insignificant. Thus, H6 is not
supported. However, in H8, it was proposed that abusive supervision moderates the
relationship between psychopathy and NSEB. As shown in Model 3 (M3) of Table V, the
interaction on NSEB is significant. Thus, the result supported H8. The present study applied
Aiken and West’s (1991) procedure for plotting the interactive influence.
As shown in Figure 2, the interaction pattern is according to H8. Specifically,
psychopathy has a positive relationship with NSEB when abusive supervision status was
high (r ¼ 0.45, p ⩽ 0.001), while the relationship of psychopathy was negative and significant
with NSEB when abusive supervision was low (r ¼ −0.17, p ⩽ 0.01).

4.5

3.5
NSEB

2.5

2 Moderator
Low AS
1.5 High AS Figure 2.
Interaction effects of
1 abusive supervision
with psychopathy
Low High on NSEB
Psychopathy Psychopathy
PR 4.4 Moderated mediation analysis
49,8 This study applied a moderated mediation analysis by using process macro techniques
described by Preacher et al. (2007). Through a bootstrapping test, we determine the indirect
effect of mediation at different levels of moderation (MacKinnon et al., 2004). Bootstrapping
is a relatively better technique than other traditional techniques. In this technique, the
confidence interval (CI) based on bootstrapping through which normality can be adjusted to
1666 distribute the mediation effect (Preacher et al., 2007).
This testing technique generates predicting effects on outcome variables and indirect
effect, which are the magnitudes of the relationship of the predictor with the outcome, which
is transferred by the intervening variable (MacKinnon et al., 2004). This study generated
95% bootstrap of CIs for indirect effects conditioned by abusive supervision on of 5,000
bootstrap samples. Table VI presents that CIs for bootstrap test on the abusive supervision
values, including 1 SD below mean, mean and 1 SD above the mean. Statistically, the CIs are
known as significant if the values are in between low and high CIs but do not include zero
(Hayes, 2013). The study results are non-significant showing that there was an insignificant
mediating influence of work engagement on the indirect relationship between psychopathy
and employee creativity. Thus, the moderated mediation test is not appropriate in this
relationship, and our H7 is rejected.
Table VI represents the bootstrap CIs for indirect influence with negative SEB when
abusive supervision values are 1 SD above mean (−0.1998 to −0.0834), mean (−0.1484 to
−0.0593) and 1 SD below the mean (−0.1171 to −0.0301). It shows a significant mediating
indirect influence of psychopathy on employee creativity via NSEB. Under the conditions of
mean, 1 SD above the mean and 1 SD below, the results suggest that mean of abusive
supervision can find a significant moderated mediation effect. Hence it supported H9.

5. Discussion and implications

Overall, the results of this study support the proposed hypothesis, which is consistent with
previous studies of similar constructs (Hurst et al., 2017). However, there are some
interesting results that broaden the extant research arguments, which suggest abusive
supervision undermines employee motivation, participation and commitment (Ling et al.,
2018). In this regard, current research indicates that abusive supervision does not
significantly moderate the mediating relationship of work engagement between
psychopathy and employee creativity. Mahaffey and Marcus (2006) argue that
psychopaths show low work engagement due to emotional and personality disorders,
and abusive supervision does not significantly influence the work engagement of employees
with higher scores of psychopathy. Therefore, the findings of this study are consistent with
the arguments by Mahaffey and Marcus (2006) regarding the emotional and work
participation of psychopaths.

5.1 Theoretical implications

Thus, this study makes several theoretical contributions. First, this study highlights the
nature of the relationship between psychopathy and employee creativity in the public health
sector, which are not included in the priority list of governments and business owners.

Abusive supervision Boot indirect effects Boot SE Boot lower limit 95% CI Boot upper limit 95% CI
Table VI.
Moderated mediation −1 SD −0.063 0.022 −0.1171 −0.0301
results for NSEB Mean −0.097 0.023 −0.1484 −0.0593
across levels of +1 SD −0.136 0.029 −0.1998 −0.0834
AS on EC Notes: CI, confidence interval. Bootstrap sample size ¼ 5,000
The findings also show that psychopathy is a personality disorder because some earlier Impact of
studies have reached similar conclusions (Hemphälä and Hodgins, 2014). This study also psychopathy
contributes to the literature by exploring the relationship between conflicting variables. on employee
For instance, creativity usually drives the novelty and practicality of ideas and practices,
while psychopathy contradicts useful ideas and promotes selfishness and artificial charm creativity
(Wilson, 2010). In this way, the current findings seem to be highly consistent with previous
findings, in which psychopathy has been seen as a destructive personality trait that inhibits 1667
the process of generating useful ideas.
Second, the mediating role of NSEB contradicts some earlier research work that claims
positive feelings and cooperative manners of psychopathic individuals (Hurst et al., 2017).
This study found that an individual at a high level of psychopathic score shows more
negative SEB and rejects opposite opinions. In this way, our findings are closer to those who
notice that psychopathic people are often selfish (Wilson, 2010). Finally, this study expands
the scope of research by using abusive supervision as a moderating variable and observing
its impact on the relationship between psychopathy and NSEB, psychopathy and work
engagement. The study results contribute to the body of knowledge by broadening
earlier findings that psychopaths are emotionless and cool minded (Herpertz and Sass, 2000;
Reidy et al., 2011). The present study argues that abusive supervision amplifies the
association between psychopathy and NSEB.

5.2 Practical implications

This research has certain practical contributions for employees, managers and
organizations to excel in employee creativity at the workplace. First, this study draws
the attention of leaders and employers because there is no effective mechanism to
distinguish employees with normal and psychopathic traits in the workplace. In the absence
of such a mechanism, it seems difficult to understand the basic reasons that can inhibit
employee creativity. For human resource authorities, the due diligence process is essential.
In this regard, the human resource department can carefully verify candidates’ resumes and
references during the recruitment process. Also, information on the candidate’s employment
record can be obtained from current or former employers. Similarly, in professional
meetings, informal information provided by former colleagues can also be an effective way
to reveal the truth. Multiple structured interviews are useful to identify potential candidates
with a psychopathic tendency. If the candidate gives a completely different answer in terms
of personality, the interviewers should raise the red flag because psychopaths can easily
change the interpersonal style. According to Mathieu and Babiak (2016), people with a high
level of psychopathic tendencies talk down to low-level employees and are rude to those who
believe they are in low status. Therefore, human resource management authorities should
include one or more low-level employees in a separate interview. The lower level interviewer
uses questions to determine the tone and personality of the candidate. A candidate who is
rude to the lowest level interviewer but who is pleasant to the highest level interviewer may
have a psychopathic tendency.
Second, this study recommends appropriate clinical treatment and psychological
counseling for employees with these personality disorders. For instance, regular
psychological tests can be conducted to determine the intensity of behavioral disorders.
Moreover, decision makers and authorities in the public health sector should introduce or
ensure compliance with standard operating procedures to protect paramedics from
workplace bullying, stress and antisocial behavior. Furthermore, to deal with psychopaths,
skilled supervisors and ethical sound supervisors should be posted who can effectively
manage employees with psychopathic tendencies and make them creative at the workplace.
Third, psychopathy is not a medical term; it is termed as an antisocial personality
disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is often difficult to
PR isolate a person with a psychopathy tendency from a normal person. In the recruitment
49,8 process, without proper psychological screening and testing, it is difficult to identify
psychopaths. Especially for public sector organizations in developing countries, including
China, psychological screening and testing of paramedics are rarely carried out. Therefore,
individuals with high psychopathy tendencies are also recruited. In the recruitment process,
human resource departments usually rely on medical fitness tests instead of psychological
1668 or behavioral tests. In some countries, legal, social and cultural norms prevent people from
being distinguished by personality traits. In order to address the issue of psychopathy in the
recruitment process, Hare (2016) introduced the revised-PCL checklist to measure the degree
of psychopathic tendency. He used a semi-structured interview, and a comprehensive chart
review reaches a total score for psychopathy. The revised-PCL has two major factors:
emotional interpersonal factors such as lack of empathy, lack of self-blame, deception and
lack of responsibility; social bias factors such as a lack of realistic goals, impulsivity,
irresponsibility, juvenile and poor behavioral control. In this regard, a revised-PCL checklist
can be used during the recruitment process to understand the level of psychopathy of
applicants applying for paramedic positions.
Fourth, the findings of this study suggest that the moderating role of abusive
supervision has an adverse effect on employees’ social-emotional behavior. As a result,
employees’ emotional and psychological resources may be affected by abusive supervision.
From this perspective, abusive supervision is a syndrome that negatively affects employees’
positive emotions. Therefore, organizational leadership should develop human resource
strategies and policies to eliminate abusive practices at the workplace (Xiu et al., 2017). This
type of supervision can be controlled in two ways: first, carefully monitor the supervisor’s
behavior and his/her interaction with his/her subordinates; second, invest more time and
money through regular training (Stewart and Marshall, 1982) to build supervisors’ ability to
overcome abuses behavior. These initiatives support the organization in creating a
favorable working environment for employees. Finally, the organization should set up a
special disciplinary committee or complaints unit to deal with abuse, harassment and unfair
treatment. Despite all these measures, if any supervisor abuses their subordinates,
disciplinary action should be taken against such supervisors. The results of this study show
that psychopaths express emotions, especially in abusive supervision. Abusive supervision
can stimulate NSEB in psychopaths at the workplace. Workplace bullying by abusive
supervisors inhibits employee creativity and reduces organizational productivity and
innovation. Therefore, the human resource department can build a less complicated
monitoring system that could supplement the existing performance appraisal methods. The
employee feedback program is valuable for identifying employees who repeatedly lie and
show signs of psychopathy. Additionally, the human resource department should
encourage open policies to make the system more transparent to reduce the chance of
abusive supervision.
Finally, abusive supervision is a common phenomenon in public sector organizations, as
bureaucratic and direction-based leadership encourages abusive attitudes at the workplace
(Niskanen, 2017; Khan, Khan and Gul, 2019). In this regard, it is essential to redesign
leadership roles and practice, especially in the public health sector, to eliminate bullying at
the workplace. Also, the employee selection process should be redesigned to discourage
psychopaths in the public health sector who may force the supervisor to become abusive to
subordinates. Therefore, performance management system also appraises the supervisors
and subordinates in the light of these parameters.

5.3 Limitation and future research directions

This study has some limitations. First, the size of our research sample is relatively small.
It does not fully represent all entities in the public health sector that are larger in size
and volume. Second, field research data samples come from one country. Therefore, the Impact of
generalizability of these results is limited, and it cannot be fully applied to results derived psychopathy
from research in another setting. Third, since the data are collected from different on employee
respondents in two different time intervals, thus common method bias is not a serious issue.
Fourth, the study is based on data obtained from employees and supervisors in public sector creativity
employees, and supervisors belong to public hospitals, so it may not really represent the
dynamics of the corporate sector, and the results may not be fully applicable to the private 1669
sector. Finally, future researchers can empirically explore the different relationships
between psychopathy and creativity by using other moderators and mediating variables to
fill the potential study gaps that persist in the literature related to public and private entities.

6. Conclusion
The current study examined the impact of psychopathy on employee creativity through the
mediating role of work engagement and NSEB. This study also investigated the moderating
role of abusive supervision in the relationship between psychopathy and work engagement,
psychopathy and NSEB in the public health sector of China. The study indicated that
individuals with psychopathic tendencies show high NSEB. Moreover, abusive supervision
simulates NSEB of the employees with psychopathic tendencies, thus inhibiting the
emergence of novel and useful ideas. In this context, paramedics should be well prepared to
take action in different situations, and they also should be knowledgeable, agile, logical,
calm, compassionate and creative to ensure that their patients receive the best possible care.

References
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, 2nd ed.,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Albrecht, S.L. and Marty, A. (2017), “Personality, self-efficacy and job resources and their associations
with employee engagement, affective commitment and turnover intentions”, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, pp. 1-25 (forthcoming).
Alfes, K., Shantz, A.D., Truss, C. and Soane, E.C. (2013), “The link between perceived human resource
management practices, engagement and employee behaviour: a moderated mediation model”,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 330-351, doi:
10.1080/09585192.2012.679950.
Amabile, T.M. (1983), “The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 357-376, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357.
Amabile, T. (1988), “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations”, in Staw, B.M. and
Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Vol. 10, In Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 123-167.
Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423, doi: 10.1037/
0033-2909.103.3.411.
Arbuckle, J.L. (2006), 17.0 User’s Guide, Amos Development Corporation, Crawfordville.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z.X. and Sun, L.D.Y. (2007), “Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: test of
a trickle-down model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 191-201, doi: 10.1037/
0021-9010.92.1.191.
Babiak, P. and Hare, R.D. (2006), Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work, Collins Business,
New York, NY.
Bales, R.F. (1970), Personality and Interpersonal Behavior, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.
Bamber, G.J., Bartram, T. and Tanton, P. (2017), “HRM and workplace innovations: formulating research
questions”, Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 1216-1227.
PR Bano, S., Cisheng, W., Khan, A. and Khan, N.A. (2019), “WhatsApp use and student’s psychological
49,8 well-being: role of social capital and social integration”, Children and Youth Services Review,
Vol. 103, August, pp. 200-208.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
1670 Barrick, M. and Mount, N.L. (2013), “The theory of purposeful work behavior: the role of personality,
higher-order goals, and job characteristics”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 132-153, doi: 10.5465/amr.2010.0479.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991), “The big five personality dimensions and job performance:
a meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L. and Piotrowski, M. (2002), “Personality and job performance: test of the
mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 43-51.
Baysinger, M.A., Scherer, K.T. and LeBreton, J.M. (2014), “Exploring the disruptive effects of psychopathy
and aggression on group processes and group effectiveness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 99
No. 1, pp. 48-65, doi: 10.1037/a0034317.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indexes in structural models”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107
No. 2, pp. 238-246, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.
Bernardo, A.B.I., Daganzo, M.A.A. and Ocampo, A.C.G. (2016), “Abusive supervision and well-being of
Filipino migrant workers in Macau: consequences for self-esteem and heritage culture detachment”,
Social Indicators Research, Vol. 139 No. 1, pp. 1-16, doi: 10.1007/s11205-016-1446-7.
Blair, R., Colledge, E. and Murray, L. (2001), “A selective impairment in the processing of sad and fearful
expressions in children with psychopathic tendencies”, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 491-508, doi: 10.1023/A:1012225108281.
Bos-Nehles, A., Renkema, M. and Janssen, M. (2017), “HRM and innovative work behaviour: a
systematic literature review”, Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 1228-1253.
Brislin, R.W. (1980), “Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials”, in Triandis, H.C.
and Berry, J.W. (Eds), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Methodology, Allyn and Bacon,
Boston, Vol. 2 No. 1980, pp. 389-444.
Cao, X., Khan, A.N., Ali, A. and Khan, N.A. (2019), “Consequences of cyberbullying and social overload
while using SNSs: a study of users’ discontinuous usage behavior in SNSs”, Information Systems
Frontiers, p. 114, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09936-8
Cao, X., Khan, A.N., Zaigham, G.H.K. and Khan, N.A. (2019), “The stimulators of social media fatigue
among students: role of moral disengagement”, Journal of Educational Computing Research, Vol.
57 No. 4, p. 125, doi: 10.1177/0735633118781907.
Chiang, Y.H., Hsu, C.C. and Shih, H.A. (2017), “Extroversion personality, domain knowledge, and
the creativity of new product development engineers”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 387-396.
Clarke, C., Kane, D. and Rajacich, D. (2012), “Bullying in undergraduate clinical education”, Journal of
Nursing Education, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 269-276, doi: 10.3928/01484834-20120409-01.
Clarke, J. (2005), Working with Monsters: How to Identify and Protect Yourself from the Workplace
Psychopath, Random House, Sydney.
Cliford, C. (2016), “Why psychopaths are so good at getting ahead”, CNBC, November 18, available at:
www.cnbc.com/2016/11/18/why-psychopaths-are-so-good-at-getting-ahead.html (accessed
December 25, 2017).
Cropley, D.H., Cropley, A.J., Kaufman, J.C. and Runco, M.A. (2010), The Dark Side of Creativity,
Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Farmer, S., Tierney, P. and Kung-Mcintyre, P. (2003), “Employee creativity in Taiwan: an application of role
identity theory”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 618-630, doi: 10.5465/30040653.
Farrell, G.A. and Shafiei, T. (2012), “Workplace aggression, including bullying in nursing and Impact of
midwifery: a descriptive survey (the SWAB study)”, International Journal of Nursing Studies, psychopathy
Vol. 49 No. 11, pp. 1423-1431.
Fowles, D.C. (2000), “Electrodermal hyporeactivity and antisocial behavior: does anxiety mediate the
on employee
relationship”, Journal Affective Disorders, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 177-189, doi: 10.1016/S0165-0327(00) creativity
00336-0.
Galang, A.J.R., Castelo, V.L.C. and Santos, L.C. (2016), “Investigating the prosocial psychopath model of 1671
the creative personality: evidence from traits and psychophysiology”, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 100, October, pp. 28-36, doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.081.
Glaser, J., Seubert, C., Hornung, S. and Herbig, B. (2015), “The impact of learning demands, work-related
resources, and job stressors on creative performance and health”, Journal of Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 37-48, doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000127.
Grant, A.M. and Ashford, S.J. (2008), “The dynamics of proactivity at work”, Research in organizational
behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 3-34.
Green, S.G. and Taber, T.D. (1980), “The effects of three social decision schemes on decision
group process”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 97-106,
doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(80)90027-6.
Guilford, J.P. (1967), “Creativity: yesterday, today and tomorrow”, The Journal of Creative Behavior,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Guy, L.S., Edens, J.F., Anthony, C. and Douglas, K.S. (2005), “Does psychopathy predict institutional
misconduct among adults? A meta-analytic investigation”, Journal of consulting and clinical
psychology, Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 1056-1064.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), “Development of the job diagnostic survey”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Hair, J.F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2009), Análise Multivariada de Dados,
Bookman Editora, Porto Alegre.
Hameed, Z., Khan, I.U., Islam, T., Sheikh, Z. and Khan, S.U. (2019), “Corporate social responsibility and
employee pro-environmental behaviors”, South Asian Journal of Business Studies.
Hameed, Z., Khan, I.U., Sheikh, Z., Islam, T., Rasheed, M.I. and Naeem, R.M. (2019), “Organizational
justice and knowledge sharing behavior: the role of psychological ownership and perceived
organizational support”, Personnel Review, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 748-773.
Hare, R.D. (1999), “Psychopathy as a risk factor for violence”, Psychiatric Quarterly, Vol. 70 No. 3,
pp. 181-197, doi: 10.1023/A:1022094925150.
Hare, R.D. (2016), “Psychopathy, the PCL-R, and criminal justice: some new findings and current
issues”, Canadian Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 21-34, doi: 10.1037/cap0000041.
Hare, R.D. and Neumann, C.S. (2010), “The role of antisociality in the psychopathy construct: comment on
Skeem and Cooke (2010)”, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 446-454, doi: 10.1037/a0013635.
Harman, H.H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E. and Cormier, C.A. (1991), “Psychopathy and violent recidivism”, Law and
Human Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 625-637, doi: 10.1007/BF01065856.
Härtel, C.E., Gough, H. and Härtel, G.F. (2008), “Work-group emotional climate, emotion management
skills, and service attitudes and performance”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 46
No. 1, pp. 21-37.
Haxby, J.V., Hoffman, E.A. and Gobbini, M.I. (2000), “The distributed human neural system for face
perception”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 223-233.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, Guilford
Press, New York, NY.
Hemphälä, M. and Hodgins, S. (2014), “Do psychopathic traits assessed in mid-adolescence predict mental
health, psychosocial, and antisocial, including criminal outcomes, over the subsequent 5 years?”,
The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 40-49, doi: 10.1177/070674371405900108.
PR Herpertz, S.C. and Sass, H. (2000), “Emotional deficiency and psychopathy”, Behavioral Sciences & the
49,8 Law, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 567-580.
Herpertz, S.C., Werth, U. and Lukas, G. (2001), “Emotion in criminal offenders with psychopathy and
borderline personality disorder”, Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 58 No. 8, pp. 737-745,
doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.58.8.737.
Hershcovis, M.S. and Barling, J. (2010), “Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for
1672 workplace aggression and sexual harassment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 5,
pp. 874-888.
Hicks, B.M. and Patrick, C.J. (2006), “Psychopathy and negative emotionality: analyses of
suppressor effects reveal distinct relations with emotional distress, fearfulness, and anger-
hostility”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 276-287, doi: 10.1037/0021-
843X.115.2.276.
Hoon Song, J., Kolb, J.A., Hee Lee, U. and Kyoung Kim, H. (2012), “Role of transformational leadership in
effective organizational knowledge creation practices: mediating effects of employees’ work
engagement”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 65-101.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification”, Psychological methods, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 424-453,
doi: 10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424.
Hurst, C., Simon, L., Jung, Y. and Pirouz, D. (2017), “Are ‘bad’ employees happier under bad bosses?
Differing effects of abusive supervision on low and high primary psychopathy employees”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 158 No. 4, pp. 1149-1164, doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3770-5.
Hutchinson, M. and Jackson, D. (2015), “The construction and legitimation of workplace bullying in the
public sector: insight into power dynamics and organisational failures in health and social care”,
Nursing Inquiry, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 13-26.
Islam, T., Attiq, S., Hameed, Z., Khokhar, M.N. and Sheikh, Z. (2019), “The impact of self-congruity
(symbolic and functional) on the brand hate: a study based on self-congruity theory”, British
Food Journal, Vol. 121 No. 1, pp. 71-88.
Jackson, D., Clare, J. and Mannix, J. (2002), “Who would want to be a nurse? Violence in the work place – a
factor in recruitment and retention”, Journal of Nursing Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 13-20.
Janssen, O. (2001), “Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job
demands, and job performance and job satisfaction”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44
No. 5, pp. 1039-1050.
Jonason, P.K., Koenig, B.L. and Tost, J. (2010), “Living a fast life”, Human Nature, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 428-442, doi: 10.1007/s12110-010-9102-4.
Jonason, P.K., Richardson, E.N. and Potter, L. (2015), “Risk in the face of retribution: psychopathic
individuals persist in financial misbehavior among the dark triad”, Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 488-494, doi: 10.1037/aca0000037.
Jones, D.N. (2014), “Risk in the face of retribution: psychopathic individuals persist in financial
misbehavior among the dark triad”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 67, pp. 109-113,
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.030.
Jones, D.N. and Paulhus, D.L. (2011), “The role of impulsivity in the Dark Triad of personality”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 679-682, doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.011.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724, doi: 10.5465/256287.
Karatepe, O.M. and Olugbade, O.A. (2009), “The effects of job and personal resources on hotel
employees’ work engagement”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 504-512.
Khan, A.N. and Ali, A. (2018), “Factors affecting retailer’s adoption of mobile payment systems:
a SEM-Neural network modeling approach”, Wireless Personal Communications, Vol. 103 No. 3,
pp. 2529-2551, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-018-5945-5
Khan, A.N., Xiongfei, C. and Pitafi, A.H. (2019), “Personality traits as predictor of M-payment systems: Impact of
a SEM-neural networks approach”, Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, Vol. 31 psychopathy
No. 4, pp. 89-110, available at: https://doi.org/10.4018/JOEUC.2019100105
Khan, A.N., Ali, A., Khan, N.A. and Jehan, N. (2019), “A study of relationship between transformational
on employee
leadership and task performance: the role of socialmedia and affective organisational commitment”, creativity
International Journal of Business Information Systems, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 499-516.
Khan, N.A. and Khan, A.N. (2019), “What followers are saying about transformational leaders fostering 1673
employee innovation via organisational learning, knowledge sharing and social media use in
public organisations?”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 385-396, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GIQ.2019.07.003
Khan, N.A., Khan, A.N. and Gul, S. (2019), “Relationship between perception of organizational
politics and organizational citizenship behavior: testing a moderated mediation model”, Asian
Business and Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 122-141, available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s412
91-018-00057-9
Khan, I.U., Hameed, Z., Yu, Y., Islam, T., Sheikh, Z. and Khan, S.U. (2018), “Predicting the acceptance of
MOOCs in a developing country: application of task-technology fit model, social motivation, and
self-determination theory”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 964-978.
Kim, D.I., Koh, H.J., Jo, S.Y., Nam, J.K. and Kim, M.C. (2014), “Educational psychology as an evolving
discipline: trends and synthesis in Asia Pacific Education Review”, Asia Pacific Education
Review, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 409-416.
Kim, S. and Yoon, G. (2015), “An innovation-driven culture in local government: do senior manager’s
transformational leadership and the climate for creativity matter?”, Public Personnel Management,
Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 147-168.
Lam, L.W., Xu, A.J. and Loi, R. (2018), “Is emotional engagement possible in emotionally demanding
jobs?”, Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 42-52.
Ling, B., Guo, Y. and Chen, D. (2018), “Change leadership and employees’ commitment to
change”, Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 83-93, doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/
a000199.
Liu, D., Liao, H.U.I. and Loi, R. (2012), “The dark side of leadership: a three-level investigation of the
cascading of abusive supervision effect on employees creativity”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 1187-1212, doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0400.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M. and Williams, J. (2004), “Confidence limits for the indirect effect:
distribution of the product and resampling methods”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 99-128, doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4.
Madera, J.M. and Smith, D.B. (2009), “The effects of leader negative emotions on evaluations of
leadership in a crisis situation: the role of anger and sadness”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 103-114.
Mahaffey, J. and Marcus, D.K. (2006), “Interpersonal perception of psychopathy: a social relations
analysis”, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 53-74.
Martindale, C., Anderson, K., Moore, K. and West, N. (1996), “Creativity, over sensitivity and rate of
habituation”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 423-427, doi: 10.1016/0191-
8869(95)00193-X.
Martinko, M.J., Harvey, P., Brees, J.R. and Mackey, J. (2013), “A review of abusive supervision research”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. S1, pp. 120-135, doi: 10.1002/job.1888.
Mathieu, C. and Babiak, P. (2016), “Corporate psychopathy and abusive supervision: their influence on
employees job satisfaction and turnover intentions”, Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol. 91, pp. 102-106, doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.002.
Nathanson, C., Paulhus, D.L. and Williams, K.M. (2006), “Predictors of a behavioral measure of scholastic
cheating: personality and competence but not demographics”, Contemporary Educational
Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 97-122, doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.03.001.
Niskanen, J. (2017), Bureaucracy and Representative Government, Routledge, Chicago.
PR Peng, J., Chen, Y., Xia, Y. and Ran, Y. (2017), “Workplace loneliness, leader-member exchange and
49,8 creativity: the cross-level moderating role of leader compassion”, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 510-515.
Pitel, L. and Gurnakova, J. (2016), “Personality predictors of health behaviours as means of affective
regulation among Slovak health professionals”, European Health Psychologist, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 753-758.
1674 Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S. and Lee, J. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research:
a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Pratt, M.G. and Ashforth, B.E. (2003), “Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work”, Positive
Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of A New Discipline, California Berrett-Koehler,
San Francisco, pp. 309-327.
Preacher, K., Rucker, D. and Hayes, A. (2007), “Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory,
methods, and prescriptions”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 185-227,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316
Reidy, D.E., Zeichner, A. and Seibert, L.A. (2011), “Unprovoked aggression: effects of psychopathic
traits and sadism”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 75-100.
Roberts, B.W. and Mroczek, D. (2008), “Personality trait change in adulthood”, Current Directions in
Psychological Science, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 31-35.
Rodwell, J., Brunetto, Y., Demir, D., Shacklock, K. and Farr-Wharton, R. (2014), “Abusive
supervision and links to nurse intentions to quit”, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, Vol. 46
No. 5, pp. 357-365.
Schaufeli, B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of short questionnaire:
a cross-national study UWES-9”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 66 No. 4,
pp. 701-716.
Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M. and González-Romá, V. (2002), “The measurement of engagement and
burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of Happiness Studies,
Vol. 3, pp. 71-92, doi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326.
Scheuer, M.L., Burton, J.P., Barber, L.K., Finkelstein, L.M. and Parker, C.P. (2016), “Linking abusive
supervision to employee engagement and exhaustion”, Organisation Management Journal,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 138-147.
Sheikh, Z., Yezheng, L., Islam, T., Hameed, Z. and Khan, I.U. (2019), “Impact of social commerce
constructs and social support on social commerce intentions”, Information Technology & People,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 68-93.
Shuck, B. and Wollard, K. (2010), “Employee engagement and HRD: a seminal review of the foundations”,
Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 89-110.
Siegall, M. and McDonald, T. (2004), “Person-organization value congruence, burnout and diversion of
resources”, Personnel Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 291-301.
Sigala, M. and Chalkiti, K. (2015), “Knowledge management, social media and employee creativity”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 45, pp. 44-58.
Stajkovic, A.D., Lee, D. and Nyberg, A.J. (2009), “Collective efficacy, group potency, and group
performance: meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 814-828.
Steinert, S.W., Lishner, D.A. and Vitacco, M.J. (2017), “Conceptualizing successful psychopathy:
an elaboration of the moderated-expression model”, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 36
No. 2, pp. 44-51.
Stewart, R. and Marshall, J. (1982), “Managerial beliefs about managing: implications for management
training”, Personnel Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 21-24.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (1996), Using Multivariate Statistics, HarperCollins, Northridge, CA.
Tepper, B.J. (2000), “Consequences of abusive supervision”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 Impact of
No. 2, pp. 178-190, doi: 10.5465/1556375. psychopathy
Verona, E., Sprague, J. and Sadeh, N. (2012), “Inhibitory control and negative emotional processing in
psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 121
on employee
No. 2, pp. 498-510, doi: 10.1037/a0025308. creativity
Wilson, L. (2010), The Psychology of Dexter, Ben Bella Books, Dallas.
Xiu, L., Liang, X., Chen, Z. and Xu, W. (2017), “Strategic flexibility, innovative HR practices, 1675
and firm performance: a moderated mediation model”, Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 7,
pp. 1335-1357.

Corresponding author
Naseer Abbas Khan can be contacted at: naseer@mail.ustc.edu.cn

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com