The classification of mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) remains overwhelmingly categorical, despite substantial evidence that personality disorders (PDs), at least, are better conceptualised from a dimensional perspective. Why is this so? What would it have meant, on a clinical, professional and scientific level, if dimensions-derived from research on normal personality-had been applied to psychiatric disorders? In the following, we review the literature supporting the legitimacy of a dimensional model of PDs, and discuss various explanations for why such a model was ultimately rejected-including the possible fear that it would induce a 'scientific revolution' in psychiatry, leading to a fundamental paradigm shift in the field. Discussion of the fundamentals of psychiatric nosology is as relevant today as a hundred years ago (Kendell, 1975; Spitzer and Wilson, 1975; Zachar and Kendler, 2010). As explicitly acknowledged in the DSM-5, diagnosis should be guided by current knowledge and based on theoretical

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the idea that there are dark side personality differences in the profiles of people at different levels in organizations. This study replicates and extends existing leadership research by focusing on self-defeating behavioral tendencies. A Danish consultancy provided data on 264 adults based on assessment reports. This paper explored linear and quadratic relationships between personality and de facto job level. More senior managers scored high on Cluster B/Moving Against Others scales of Bold, Colorful and Imaginative, and low on Cautious and Dutiful. These Danish data are compared to data from Great Britain and New Zealand which show very similar findings. Practice should take into account that dark side personality traits associated with an assertive, sometimes hostile, interpersonal orientation, predict leadership level up to a point.