Abstract
Dark leadership poses a substantial yet underexplored threat to institutional health, particularly within higher education institutions (HEIs). Characterised by psychopathic traits such as manipulation, Machiavellianism, callousness, lack of empathy, and a compulsive need to dominate and control, dark leaders disregard ethical boundaries whilst exploiting their positional power for personal gain. These behaviours have been extensively studied in criminal and corporate settings, but little is known about their prevalence and effects in HEIs, particularly in South Asian contexts.
This paper examines the presence and impact of dark leadership styles in Pakistani higher education institutions, focusing on how psychopathic leadership traits shape institutional productivity, staff well-being, and academic integrity. Grounded in an interpretivist philosophical stance, this study employs a qualitative methodology of semi-structured interviews with faculty and staff who have direct experience of working under leaders exhibiting dark leadership behaviours. The study is theoretically grounded in the Dark Triad framework and Institutional Theory. A thematic analysis was employed as the analytical method, drawing on Braun and Clarke's (2014, 2021) six-phase process. A novel methodological contribution of this study is the integration of sentiment analysis as a second-phase analytical layer, enabling a richer understanding of the emotional dimensions of participants' lived experiences.
Four critical themes had emerged from the data: manipulative impression management and political survival; emotional detachment and a lack of empathy; a toxic organisational climate and a fear culture; and the erosion of ethical and academic integrity. These themes reveal how dark leadership undermines institutional trust, overpowers academic freedom, and erodes the collaborative culture essential to scholarly productivity. This study offers novel theoretical insights by applying dark leadership frameworks to the South Asian HEI context. In practice, the findings indicate that university governance bodies and accreditation agencies must embed leadership ethics and staff well-being indicators within quality assurance frameworks, ensuring institutional accountability extends to the highest levels of leadership. Future research directions include longitudinal and cross-national comparative studies.