It mentions those with "dark traits" tend to be seen as poor team players, but perhaps that's exactly why these types ascend to top leadership positions. Your "team play" ability only matters to the extent that you engage in peer-to-peer relationships, which can be relatively minimal in that position compared to, say, middle management. See, for instance, Steve Jobs. I've never heard him described as a "team player", exactly.
In the end, I'd say both types are important. Obviously we need team players, but sometimes you need an auteur or benevolent dictator. Measuring success for these different types should account for their respective strengths.
In my personal experience, the problem with individuals with narcissistic psychopathic features in management or executive positions is that there's almost always opportunity costs with regard to a different way that could have achieved more with less cost. That is, they are ruthless and destructive, and claim doing so was necessary, but it's only because there was a very very simple alternate approach (often requiring some modicum of social awareness) that could have yielded something even better at a fraction of the financial and personal cost. Their approach is often presented as "harsh but necessary" when it's anything but.
Also, they tend to deceptively take credit for progress, in the sense that things that would have occurred regardless, even without them in that position. Often things were already in progress before they attained their position, and often the people who were responsible for that are actually eliminated by them so as to remove threats to them getting credit. This is part of the problem: that they tend to manipulate others and the system for their own gain. In fact, I'm a bit suspicious of attributions of success associated with dark traits, even in a research context, because of this phenomenon. I wouldn't say I think the association isn't there, but I think it's a serious research design problem that isn't completely addressed (e.g., let's say you have a company whose profits are starting to increase with acceleration, and a psychopath who wants to gain from that. if they move up in a leadership position as they see it as profitable personally, are subsequent institutional gains due to them or the pre-existing conditions the psychopath appraised? It will look like the gains occurred after the psychopath entered the position, but in reality, the causal direction goes the other way around -- that the psychopath was attracted to the position because they saw it as something that would reflect well on them).
I think there's some kind of bias in play with these sorts of social-personality characteristics, where people tend to have a blind spot to the opportunity costs of this behavior (akin to survivorship bias but different). It probably has an established name, but I don't know what it is.
They are damaging, but nevertheless they are ascending to leadership positions. Look at middle management - it literally selects for people with lower EQ who are insensitive towards needs of people who dont have power. Or those with narcissistic psychopathic features.
Yes, they harm things. But their nice cooperating peers are less likely to "steal" other peoples achievements and progress less.
Plenty of anti-social individuals are masters of subtle manipulation and can min/max along social axis to reach their goals. It's dangerous to assume that individuals with narcissistic psychopathic features will always be "ruthless or destructive" because many (most?) will not.
With the caveat that I have no ability whatsoever to diagnose psychopathy, I nevertheless found the book Snakes in Suits[1][2] (TLDR notes[3]) to be a fascinating and accessible read on the topic. At some point in each of our careers, particularly for readers of HN, we will likely encounter individuals that exhibit the traits described in the text. As the old maxim goes - 'forewarned is forearmed.'
>Your "team play" ability only matters to the extent that you engage in peer-to-peer relationships
It doesn't "only matter" in relationships that are horizontal on the org chart. They're just not the totality of the non-peer relationships. Understanding and communicating boundaries between teaming and exercising authority is key to efficiently moving everyone toward a target.
To torture the sports team metaphor more, the captains on a team are players but also an authority among the players. To the front office, a coach is a member of the gameday team.
I'd further go on to say that 'unhappiness' is where there's a divergence of "Who you are", "Who you want to be" & "Where you are". Happy people tend to the ones who're really good at their job and a pleasure to work/spend time with.
I'd have thought the ideal would be you'd have your corporate structure/society, with all the varied positions filled and everybody happy in their roles.
Where it goes wrong is where the overall need doesn't map to the population - e.g. half of the people want to be benevolant dictators
In the end, I'd say both types are important. Obviously we need team players, but sometimes you need an auteur or benevolent dictator. Measuring success for these different types should account for their respective strengths.