The Dark Side & Derailment: Knavery and Flattery
‘Bad appointments to office are a threefold inconvenience: they are an injury to public business; they dishonour the prince; and they are a kind of robbery of those who deserve advancement.’
—Frederick the Great
‘One must do violence to the object of one’s desire; when it surrenders, the pleasure is greater.’
—Marquis du Sade
7.1 Introduction
Interest in leadership failure, sometimes called derailment, is nothing new. But its importance has started to generate greater interest. Publications about leadership failure have been steadily increasing for the past decade. Typically much more is written about leadership success than leadership failure. The chart below shows the rise of books published on leadership success and failure. These are Google n-grams which show how frequently terms appear in Google’s library.
Figure 7.1 Google N-gram Showing Frequency of Terms ‘Leadership Success’ and ‘Leadership Failure’
So far, all previous chapters have focused on positive traits and characteristics associated with high potential. These are desirable and associated with constructive endeavours. We were looking for positive attributes, with the intention of building up a profile of high potential. Desirable characteristics are important for predicting success, but what about failure?
Leaders sometimes fail because they are incompetent or inexperienced, or because they do not have enough of a desired characteristic, like intelligence or courage. They also fail and derail through the extremes of traits like risk-taking which can turn into thrill seeking, or self-esteem which may balloon into narcissism.
One cause of blindness to derailment early among high flyers is the issue of selecting in, not out. That is focusing exclusively on finding positive traits and forgetting to consider the undesirable characteristics. ‘Selecting out’ implies looking for evidence of the traits that could potentially cause derailment. But, possessing an attitude that fits poorly with the job can easily lead to derailment, so what exactly are we talking about? Arrogance, paranoia, excessive emotionality; these are known to be derailers, but they are surprisingly ignored, partly because they do not appear on the all-important competency list and partly because nobody has been given the job of identifying the ‘select out’ factors. As Lloyd Craig put it, ‘check references, do thorough background checks, don’t hire assholes.’
‘Select out’ factors are known as the ‘dark-side’ variables. They are often related to psychiatric personality disorders and they are highly relevant to performance. Ignore them at your peril.
Undesirable, ‘dark side’ traits can inhibit leadership potential and can lead to situations and behaviours that can derail whole careers and organisations. Desirable and undesirable characteristics are not necessarily exclusive. People who are clever can also be cruel; people who are open to new experiences can get themselves into trouble; the motivated and dedicated can become committed to the wrong causes and toxic leaders.
Derailment potential is another facet of the question potential to do what? It is perilous to ignore. In derailment potential, this question can be framed as potential to do what damage? Estimates suggest that somewhere between one half and three quarters of managers will ‘derail’ (Dalal and Nolan, 2009). The effects of derailment vary significantly depending on the individual’s position and power in the organisation. It should not be surprising how common derailment is, and mostly because people do not recognise or look for the signs of derailment. The problem of derailment potential is something that many leaders fail to spot, or see but do not deal with swiftly enough.
7.2 Bad, Sad or Mad?
In the most basic sense, there are three different types of derailment: bad, mad, and sad (Furnham, 2010).
In the context of derailment, to be bad means to be purposely and consciously destructive, mischievous, immoral, or autocratic. It means people are deliberately ignoring the interests of colleagues, the purpose of the organisation, the shareholders or basic decency and morality. Of course morality and group interests are subjective, but bad leaders and bad derailment is primarily about self-interest trumping all other priorities.
Mad leaders have some sort of sub-clinical disorder. Mad suggests psychological illness or instability. This can be destructive psychopathic or sociopathic behaviour that can be a driver of initial success as well as failure. Or, it can be illness or mental instability that develops, sometimes because of the demands, pressures, and rewards of the position. David Owen (2012) describes in The Hubris Syndrome how the benefits of power can become intoxicating and distort behaviours and values while a leader is in power. What Owen calls the Hubris Syndrome is a description of how prolonged exposure to unchecked power can turn attitudes and behaviour toxic. Owen uses the case of Tony Blair, which will be discussed later in this chapter.
Sad leaders’ derailment is unassuming and not intentionally mischievous. This is the most common derailment that comes from simple optimism, over-estimation, or lack of self-awareness. This is essentially misreading the signs of high potential, or it is a false positive; seeing something (in oneself, or someone else) where it doesn’t exist. Three brief examples of different types of derailment in people judged to have high potential:
• Sad derailment of high potential: The person is assessed poorly; intelligence, experience, and other traits are over-estimated either because of poor tools or inexperienced assessors. The person is promoted beyond their abilities, struggles through positions they cannot handle and eventually they leave or are removed. They may just think the ‘game is not worth the candle’ and give up, opting for a quieter life with less demanding work requirements;
• Mad derailment of high potential: The person appears to have all of the right characteristics, all the desirable attributes that make a good leader, but their ‘dark side’ attributes are minimal, dormant or concealed. They may initially be highly confident and self-assured and good at self-promotion, which helps their progression. As they are promoted into more senior positions, with more responsibility, the job demands begin to take their toll. What was once cheerful self-promotion becomes self-aggrandisement. Confidence gives way to frenetically protecting their feelings of self-worth and competence, at the expense of all productivity. This is not to say this will happen to most people, but overwhelming situations can bring out the worst (or the best) in people;
• Bad derailment of high potential: These are the people who deliberately set about to personally benefit from power, cause mayhem, or hurt others. They are the best at appearing to be high potential, even when they are not. There is always a plateau to their abilities. They are usually driven by greed and excitement and fail to obey legal and moral obligations in their role. They will quickly drive a company into the ground either because they do not care about the consequences or because they enjoy the carnage.
Figure 7.2 summarises the three general categories of derailment, and why people are selected, promoted and reasons they can derail.
Figure 7.2 Career Markers of Bad, Mad and Sad Derailers
7.3 Bad Apples or Bad Barrels?
It is necessary, when thinking about derailment, to consider what forces are internal to the person (inability; illness; immorality) and external that arise from the situation, such as lack of oversight, rewarding misbehaviour, or poor role models. Many people have the experience, especially early in their careers, of being part of an organisation or group where situational or social pressures can drastically change behaviour; new job demands, new environments, and expectations all impact behaviour.
Whilst clinical and differential psychologists are eager to describe and explain derailment, primarily in terms of the pathology of individuals, social psychologists and those interested in organisational behaviour prefer to emphasise social and contextual factors that shape the behaviour of people in certain settings.
Figure 7.3 The Characteristics and Consequences of Derailment
Phillip Zimbardo describes how quickly and strongly situational forces (bad barrels) can create bad apples. Zimbardo was responsible for the landmark Stanford Prison Experiment. He took 24 young, middle class college students and in only five days turned these healthy and psychologically stable young men into terrifyingly real captives and prison guards. The students were assigned, randomly, to be either prison guards or prisoners. The prisoners were taken from their homes in a mock arrest, and placed in a makeshift prison in Stanford. The guards were given matching uniforms and equipment, and assigned the task of arresting, managing, and disciplining the ‘prisoners’. Within days, the prison became what Zimbardo (2008) describes as a ‘descent into Hell’ (p.39).
The prison guards became cruel and abusive captors, finding elaborate and appalling techniques to make the prisoners behave. Figure 7.4 below shows some of the key differences in behaviours between prisoners and guards. Guards became more aggressive, threatening, and abusive although there was nothing in their personality or particular psychological makeup that would predispose them to such behaviour any more than the prisoner.
Zimbardo himself stresses his own complicity in allowing unethical behaviour to flourish because of improper oversight and commitment to the continuation of the experiment, despite moral issues. Zimbardo said that in his dual role, as researcher and prison warden, he too got caught up in the details of the experiment, he protected and continued the experiment because of his own investiture in its continuation. However, he acknowledges in hindsight it should have been shut down much earlier.
Figure 7.4 Frequency of Guard and Prisoner Behaviour Adapted from Zimbardo, 2008
This is an example of how a ‘bad barrel’, in this case a simulated prison, can create ‘bad apples’, the guards and even a ‘bad’ experimenter/warden. Yet after terminating the experiment, Zimbardo became one of the strongest advocates for ethical oversight and control in psychological research. People derail, and can turn toxic in the wrong environment, but can recover and learn from errors. The Lucifer Effect (2008) describes the Stanford Prison experiment as well as the more wide-ranging moral and social implications. It is well worth a read.
Zimbardo in later years thoroughly investigated causes of unethical behaviour, and the transformation of ‘normal’ and ‘healthy’ people into ‘bad apples’. He investigated and testified on behalf of members of the US Armed Forces, who had been involved in torture and sadistic behaviour at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. He testified that lack of oversight and unhealthy organisational culture creates an environment where most normal, healthy, promising, and possibly high potential people seriously misbehave. In the case of Abu Ghraib, where a group of soldiers humiliated and tortured Iraqi prisoners, there is obviously no excuse, no escaping the personal accountability of bad behaviour.
The lesson to be learned is what can be done to stop bad behaviour from developing: in other words, reducing people’s derailment potential. It must be shut down from the top. In Abu Ghraib, military prison guards had no training as prison guards; they worked 12 hour shifts with few or no breaks, 7 days a week. Prison guards who were normally physically athletic had no time to exercise and did not take regular meals. Guards reported constant fear of prisoners, of Iraqi guards, and constant fear of external attack that created mounting exhaustion with little supervision, training, or oversight. The message is not that people are not responsible for their own behaviour, but there are systematic factors, neglect from leaders, lack of oversight, and threatening environments that can drastically alter behaviour and lead people into very bad behaviours. ‘Bad apples’ are sometimes born rotten, but they can be and are created by situation and circumstance.
David Owen describes how power, combined with the right conditions can create a ‘bad barrel’ by what he describes as The Hubris Syndrome. Owen uses political leaders as an example, focusing particularly on the recent example of Tony Blair and George Bush’s handling of international affairs after 11 September, 2001. He describes Tony Blair launching himself onto the world stage as a forceful personality, personally dedicated to forming an international coalition for the invasion of Iraq. He was charming; he seemed to have boundless energy, combined with enthusiasm for the big picture but a poor grasp of the details. Limited planning, with nearly delusional optimism led George Bush to stand under a banner proclaiming ‘Mission Accomplished’ in Iraq on an aircraft carrier off the coast of California in 2003, eight years before American troops withdrew from Iraq.
Owen’s book details the failures of planning, combined with the hubris of both Brown and Blair, working together on a vision while ignoring the details and much of the evidence that was available at the time. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment, the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and the way Blair and Bush presented the evidence for invading Iraq all had three key elements in common that led to derailment and abuses of the system: this is typically referred to as the toxic triangle.
7.4 The Toxic Triangle
Leaders usually get the lion’s share of the credit for success, and the blame for failure. When Steve Jobs died, his Telegraph obituary gave him complete credit for Apple’s success: ‘it was because of him that Apple products, even when they do largely what other products do, are perceived to be different and infinitely more cool.’ Derailment cannot happen alone. Leaders cannot be successful without the right situations, times, and colluders.
Toxic leaders are infamous: it’s easy to think of examples of people who have run countries, businesses, or their own lives into the ground. There are dictators like Japan’s Hirohito, North Korea’s trinity of Kims, or Gaddafi, the Arab League’s answer to Little Richard, who led their countries into ruin. In business, CEOs also get blamed for the success or failure of their company.
There are three fundamental aspects of leadership derailment. Adrian Furnham describes the toxic leadership triangle in his book The Elephant in the Boardroom. The toxic triangle is three corners which collude with derailment potential.
Figure 7.5 The Toxic Triangle
A) Toxic Leaders
Toxic leaders can create, be born from, and go into toxic environments. They are not simply incompetent; they deliberately manipulate positions of influence or power for their own interests. They are the bad. They know what they are doing, and they can create an entire culture around them that supports their own vision or objectives. Toxic leaders can be charming, energetic, and will oversell their own achievements. They are excellent manipulators and convince others that they are well suited to leadership. They may spread their own confidence amongst others, but are only interested in bettering themselves. However, they may find it simple to find followers, because they have no compunctions about misleading, lying, or selling simplistic answers. They will tell employees what they want to hear, and manipulate people to achieve their own ends. For a toxic leader, they are not leading the company or country; they are the company or country. Louis XIV supposedly said in response to the President of Parliament speaking in the interest of the state, ‘L’État, c’est moi’ (I am the state). This quote was actually invented by Voltaire (Bent, 1887), but it exemplifies what toxic leaders can become. Toxic leaders contribute to, and encourage, failure because they pursue their own agenda, irrespective of others around them, and the fate or a nation or company will eventually lead down a destructive path.
‘I am not going to leave this land. I will die as a martyr at the end. I shall remain, defiant. Muammar is Leader of the Revolution until the end of time.’
—Muammar Gaddafi, addressing the nation, 2011
B) Colluding Followers
Toxic leaders will not get far without strong and active supporters. Because leaders can influence hiring decisions, toxic leaders can build up a talent pool – a talent bog perhaps – of loyal followers and colluders. Thus, a leader can use their position and transform the entire organisation and its culture to conform to their own particular vision; they need supportive people who carry out orders without question.
There are many reasons followers support leaders who are either blatantly or subtly malicious. Ambitious people may be tempted to support toxic leaders to secure their own positions, and toxic leaders are happy to capitalise on others’ ambitions, although they may not deliver the rewards they promise. Many followers will truly believe in the leaders; an impassioned speech from a toxic leader who knows exactly how to get what he or she wants can be extraordinarily convincing.
Followers collude with toxic leaders either because of blind loyalty or self-interest. Some followers will actively work with leaders, knowing their behaviour is bad; others work hard because they are convinced the leader’s vision is right.
C) Threatening Environment
Certain situations, organisations, and times make it much easier for toxic leaders to thrive. It can be difficult, but not impossible, for toxic leaders to gain influence when circumstances are good. However, when times are bad the toxic leaders really have a chance to thrive. Economic or social dislocation or perceptions of external threat make people more eager to accept extreme solutions. Once a toxic leader gains power, they continue to promote the feeling of external threat to promote internal unity and dedication to the leader’s cause.
Toxic leaders will offer clear and simple solutions that sound appealing. A toxic leader has no compunction about offering dishonest or misleading solutions particularly when the truth is unappealing. They will use any means necessary to gain power, and when large numbers of people are uncertain or feel threatened, unscrupulous leaders can swoop in and take control.
Threatening or uncertain circumstances encourage followers to look for simple solutions. Toxic leaders will make external threats seem much worse than they really are, and offer solutions that seem simple. They smooth over complexities, difficulties and offer their own ideology, their own power as a simple solution to all problems.
Toxic leaders have trouble succeeding when there is oversight, regulations, and enforcement. Toxic leaders need to find conditions where the position of power is not monitored or controlled. Which leads us nicely into discussing an important topic: What can we do to prevent high potential people from derailment? There are two key areas: the first is at the individual level, of identifying individual derailment potential and being wary of ‘dark side’ traits. The two key issues at the individual level can really be divided into potential for hamartia (fatal errors) and potential for hubris (fatal flaws). Finally, there are systematic checks and balances that can be put in place.
7.5 Systems to Prevent Derailment
1. Proper Oversight
Good corporate governance is essential: striking the balance between giving the leader enough flexibility to do their job, while making sure the leader is not overstepping his or her bounds and taking their power too far, and to the wrong places. Good governance cannot eliminate the derailment of high potential leaders, but can reduce the occurrence and the damage. Leaders need enough freedom to manoeuvre but not unlimited power. In the case of managing CEOs, the board needs to be connected enough, involved enough, and aware enough to spot the warning signs; they also need the power and courage to step in if need be.
2. Sophisticated Selection
Some people with very high derailment potential can be spotted, and screened outright in the selection process. Assessors must have an understanding both of assessments, and what to look out for. There is now much more interest in this issue and excellent psychometrically validated tests to evaluate the dark side of personality. These can indicate possible areas of concern about leaders’ behaviour when put under pressure, which they inevitably are. Often good reference checks are sufficient to select out many people with a long history of derailing behaviours.
3. Personal Support
Friends, spouses, trusted coaches, or mentors can mitigate or halt derailment. Those who are not able to proceed with the job or whose environment is turning their behaviour toxic need people they trust and can rely on. Unfortunately, those who need the honest opinion of a friend or colleague most can be most resistant, least willing to listen, or have lost friends to bad behaviour. It takes a highly skilled and courageous coach, colleague or board member to confront a very senior manager/leader and help him/her to avoid derailment.
4. Self-awareness
Not all derailment is inevitable, or a result of immutable personal attributes. Leaders can become corrupted by systems and situations. Almost anyone can be corrupted by getting caught up in the toxic triangle (Zimbardo’s Lucifer Effect). Understanding how strongly situations can affect individual perceptions, valuing independence, admitting one’s errors, and noticing situational clues all help to avoid or stave off derailment. Experience of past failure can be a powerful buffer.
7.6 Hamartia, and Mitigating the ‘Sad’
Derailment is not always the result of deliberate mischief, wickedness, or dysfunction. Ancient Greek myth abounds with examples of major judgement errors, hamartia. These are not fundamental character flaws that make someone deserve a dire fate; they are errors that consequentially lead to a downfall. Aristotle thought that hamartia was the only way to bring down an epic hero: it’s an explanation for failure, without the person being a failure.
It can just as easily be poor placement, and the result of innocent mistakes. Someone is put into a position where they are not competent, not ready, or don’t receive sufficient instruction to do the job well. Sometimes they might crash and burn and bring other people down with them, or they resign in frustration, leave for another position, or are asked to leave because they are not competent.
It’s easy to spot when people are not performing their job as they need to be, but it’s not always easy to spot why or to make a change. Frequently these people leave (whether or not of their own accord). While the ‘mad’ and the ‘bad’ can rise many positions above their real potential for success, the ‘sad’ find themselves in a position beyond their ability, and start to peddle backwards. Some, with self-awareness and courage, are able to admit to themselves and others that the new position is just not for them.
It is common for people to want to succeed, to earn more money, earn greater benefits and be recognised for achievement. It is also common for people’s ambitions and appetites to exceed their talents, particularly early in their career. Many people are self-confident, and a moderate degree of self-confidence is healthy. But levels of ambition do not always match up with talent and potential. Successful and accurate identification of potential means mitigating the causes of ‘sad’ derailment. Good selection techniques should pick up what self-awareness does not (which is why, as will be discussed in the next section, not every method of getting information about people is equal).
It is not uncommon in work relationships for ambitious colleagues or complicit managers to form a minor folie à deux relationship. Each overestimates each other, and what they can accomplish together. It is easy to believe in potential, or at least create the illusion of potential where none actually exists, especially over a good dinner or a few glasses of wine. This is not necessarily done maliciously or manipulatively, but when people have strong, positive relationships it is easy to trust the other person’s judgement more than one should in a work situation. The complimentary manger can provide more praise, and boost employees’ confidence; the overconfident employee can oversell their own ability.
Even after both have overstepped, the relationship and mutual confidence can lead to derailing situations. It can be mutually deceptive. Neither wants to admit (nor believes) they are wrong. That is certainly not to discourage trust in working relationships, but simply to say that when selection and development decisions are to be made, rely on objective evidence. Ironically, the better you think you know someone, the more challenging it can be to make truly objective decisions. In this case, external advice and oversight in hiring and promotion decisions are always a good idea. Always remember the lessons of experience from Chapter 5; a good friend or a good volunteer does not necessarily make a good employee.
A management culture that focuses solely on accentuating the positive and celebrating success can turn toxic. A philosophy that there are no bad people, just bad attitudes can eventually lead to very bad results indeed. Balance is important, appreciating the positive combined with a healthy wariness of the negative. Understanding and screening for potentially negative traits will improve the overall selection process.
Mitigating the ‘sad’ derailment misses many of the spectacular and explosive types of derailment, but it’s the garden variety that springs up again and again – it’s not sordid, nefarious, or malicious; it’s just good intentions, optimism, and ambition gone astray. Most people at some time in their life realise they have made a poor decision, have taken the wrong path, or are in the wrong career. That’s minor derailment, and when caught early has minor consequences. But the key is that the person realises. When the person isn’t aware enough to see they are headed for self-immolation, or cannot see the trail of destruction they are leaving behind (or, consciously hide both) it indicates the more serious, mad or bad derailment.
7.7 Hubris, Identifying and Deselecting the ‘Mad’ and ‘Bad’
Where sad derailment can be as simple as over-optimism and poor selection criteria, the mad and the bad are completely different; these are more poetic and compelling, because the characteristics that assist the climb precipitate the fall. Where hamartia was about an error of judgement, hubris implies something more fundamental to character. Aristotle thought that: ‘as for the pleasure in hubris, its cause is this: men think that by ill-treating others they make their own superiority the greater.’
Hubris is not necessarily consciously planned wickedness, it may not be deliberate but it is still destructive. The major and important difference is that this is not just a competence failure. It is not passive, nor is it accidental. These are active traits that dominate not just personality, but performance and potential. A serious challenge for identifying potential is that ‘dark side’ traits can pass for desirable characteristics. Narcissism can masquerade as confidence. The paranoid micromanagers may appear to be very conscientious. People who are manipulative learn exactly what to say and how to say it; and they learn what people are looking for and how to present themselves.
Nearly all the spectacular derailers were originally judged by their organisation to have great potential. These are people with clear personalities that are apparent relatively early in their career. It is important for anyone interested in managing potential to be aware of them. The same traits that can be assets at some points in a career, like superficial charm, can eventually lead to that person’s downfall.
There are serious observable and hidden costs to ‘dark side’ traits and management derailment. Once derailment occurs in large companies, share prices tumble or decline. Mistakes compound, are missed or neglected and can eventually become spectacles of public (or internal ridicule). There are all sorts of disasters that can be created or exacerbated by management derailment. The characteristics that lead to derailment are also the characteristics that are more likely to compound problems instead of resolving them. Those who care more about their own image than their organisation, or feel unable to admit their own mistakes, will cover up their own errors instead of taking responsibility and resolving problems.
It is the hidden costs that are most severe. Derailment is actually a long process that has consequences far before the large-scale failures are publicised. Staff and colleagues can become demoralised, disengaged, and less productive. Or worse, become colluders. When problems are not resolved, they fester. The leader with dark side traits is more focused on self-interest than corporate improvement. Some people leave the organisation whereas others become disengaged or unable to work properly when large problems remain unsolved. When people leave, the loss of intellectual and social capital decreases the capacity of the organisation, higher turnover increases training and development costs and lead to a toxic culture and environment within the organisation.
The lesson to be learned from dark side attributes and derailment is to be mindful that ‘deselection’ is equally important as selection. It is just as important to have a list of undesirable traits during the selection process, otherwise it is easy to overlook dark side traits, or to see every trait as a strength instead of acknowledging weakness. This is not to say all these traits should be automatically and wholly avoided. They should just be considered, and when comparing candidates for suitability, if two candidates are equally qualified, weaknesses may be a good way of distinguishing between people.
Some of these are traits that may be difficult or impossible to change when they are symptomatic of personality traits. Perfectionism is highly related to conscientiousness. Other attributes like excessive caution may be present for good reasons early in a job, but may be overcome through experience. But, it is something to remember if someone tends to be excessively cautious early in a role – they are probably not the right candidate to parachute into a demanding role that requires immediate action.
7.8 The ‘Dark Side’ Traits and Characteristics
A general list of characteristics to look for is below, these are by no means exhaustive, but a good place to start:
• Arrogance: they believe they are always right, their way is always the best and they are the most important. They can’t acknowledge their own failure, but are quick to take credit for anything, even if their contribution was modest or non-existent;
• Melodrama: they need to be the centre of attention whether it is good or bad. Their thoughts, feelings and emotions are regularly a matter of public discussion far too often. They are always asking (loudly) why they seem to attract all of the world’s troubles. They tend to have low self-awareness, believe that other people’s troubles follow them around, not realising that they create most of their own trouble and can be a constant source of conflict for those around them;
• Volatility: they can be moody, or take pleasure in business risk-taking for the thrill of it. They might give instructions and inexplicably change their mind shortly after. They have completely new ideas the night before an important event. They might be pleasant one minute and angry the next. Or, they make decisions that regularly put the business at risk, without good reason;
• Excessive caution: they are paralysed by indecision and uncertainty. For them, growing pressure crushes their ability to make decisions. Caution can be good in certain circumstances, but people who are excessively cautious are unable to make decisions, especially when the decisions are vital. They ask other people their opinion; then they ask the same people the same question, to reaffirm their decision. When possible, they postpone important deadlines and decisions. Many windows of opportunity close because of their difficulty committing to important plans or decisions;
• Habitual distrust: they automatically assume the worst in situations and others. They tend to believe others’ mistakes are a subtle attempt at sabotage. They might see others’ success as a direct threat to their own performance. Whatever happens, they assume the very worst;
• Aloofness: they disengage and disconnect from colleagues. They avoid interaction with colleagues as much as possible, and try their best to seal themselves off or they deliberately put themselves in situations to make a point of ignoring others. It is noticeable, sometimes hysterical self-imposed isolation;
• Eccentricity: they like to feel different and unique, and want other people to know it. They will play up little differences, and delight in other people noticing their peculiarities. This can be excessive attention seeking, and drawing focus to things completely unrelated to their work;
• Passive resistance: they oppose decisions, but do not voice their disagreement. They stay quiet, withdraw or sulk. But for their own personal reasons they will not argue. Their silence is easily misinterpreted as agreement. They complain and sulk but avoid direct confrontation;
• Perfectionism: they feel an obsessive need for everything to be the best, but become preoccupied with minor details. They seem to get the little things right even if the big things go wrong. They obsess about the alignment of page margins before even beginning to write the report. They would be 40 minutes late instead of leaving the house with a hair out of place. In their own work, they cannot get things done on time because their work is never finished. They constantly make changes, and create more errors that need to be fixed, and focus on details that are not important;
• Eagerness to please: they want to be liked and want to be popular. The results of their work are more focused on making friends than getting the job done. They feel they have the best intentions: they want to make friends and preserve relationships at all costs. They can be lovely to work with, but difficult when decisions need to be made.
All of these traits are relatively minor manifestations of ‘dark side’ personality traits. Most of the above characteristics can be relatively benign. In certain jobs they may even be advantageous. However, they are characteristics that can become more problematic at higher levels of a career or when job demands become more taxing. Eagerness to please in small doses can be endearing. At higher levels it can lead to sacrificing business performance for the sake of avoiding conflict.
Researchers in the area of ‘bad’ derailment suggest there is a Dark Triad of sub-clinical psychopathy. ‘People of the Dark Triad’ have high self-interest but low empathy. They are therefore not interested in, well suited for, or good at, long-term relationships where a degree of reciprocity is called for, such as leading people, leading an organisation, or leading a nation. A successful career and strong leadership requires a degree of reciprocity.
Leadership, especially at higher levels, requires suspending personal desires for the success and interests of the company. People with ‘dark side’ traits do not have the capacity or desire to suspend self-interest, so that disparity can be a key factor in derailment. These individuals can be classified as psychopathic, Machiavellian, or narcissistic. Really, there are many similarities between these three traits that involve lack of empathy, manipulativeness, and what most people would describe as immorality. The Dark Triad traits lead to the exploitation of others and pursuance of self-centred objectives. Each of these traits involves wilful exploitation of others for pleasure, power, or persona.
For the narcissist there is no higher goal than improving one’s own image. Narcissists are not just concerned with power, but power and influence for the sake of praise. The narcissistic leader will value success of the organisation most when they are the name and face of the company. The narcissist then uses power and influence as a tool for their own self-promotion, their leadership position is only valuable as a method of feeling good about themselves. This may lead to temporary successes, because the narcissistic trait creates a strong drive to achieve at any cost. However, the drive to protect their own reputation and image can lead to hiding mistakes instead of resolving them or focusing on self-preservation at the expense of company priorities.
Fig 7.6 Dark Triad of Subclinical Psychopathology
Machiavellians can be exploitative charmers. They are interested in the pursuit of power, and may view morality as unnecessary except as a useful artifice. Machiavellians are focused on success like narcissists, but do not necessarily need praise. They derive satisfaction from power and influence, whether others notice their power or not. The narcissist would trade influence for image; the Machiavellian would happily make that trade with the narcissist.
Psychopaths are exploiters. They seek thrills, enjoy manipulating others and take risks for the sake of it. Whereas Machiavellians and narcissists use their talents instrumentally for selfishness, psychopaths may use their talents to deliberately torment others. They enjoy other people’s misfortune and delight in being abnormal. Not just being ‘quirky’ or getting an unconventional haircut, psychopaths enjoy transgressing social and cultural norms for the sake of shocking and disturbing other people. Psychopaths may be extraordinarily successful because they have no trouble using any social tools at their disposal to get what they want.
7.9 The Corporate Psychopath
Psychopaths like power and having power over people, so they are naturally drawn to positions of leadership. There are two dimensions of psychopathy. The first is socio-emotional where the psychopath is superficial and lacking in empathy, guilt, or remorse. They are also deceitful and manipulative while being prone to egocentricity and grandiosity. The second is their social deviance associated with boredom susceptibility, impulsivity, and lack of self-control. In children they show evidence of behaviour problems and in adulthood anti-social behaviour. This has led to the development of a checklist.
Hare (1999) in a chapter on white-collar psychopaths noted how many were ‘trust-mongers’ who, through charm and gall, obtained then very callously betrayed the trust of others. He notes how they make excellent imposters and how they frequently target the vulnerable. He calls them sub-criminal psychopaths, and they can thrive as academics, cult-leaders, doctors, police officers, or writers. They exploit their positions, violate rules, conventions and ethical standards and cross legal boundaries. He also gives a rich case study description of what he calls a corporate psychopath. He notes that there is certainly no shortage of opportunities for psychopaths who think big. It’s lucrative. ‘They are fast talking, charming, self-assured, at ease in social situations, cool under pressure, unfazed by the possibility of being found out, and totally ruthless’ (p.121).
Babiak and Hare (2006) believe most of us will interact with a psychopath every day. But their skills and abilities make them difficult to spot. Often they are charming, emotionally literate and socially skilled. Next they are often highly articulate. They are brilliant at managing and adapting their own image. The non-institutionalised psychopaths are described as carefree, aggressive, charming, and impulsively irresponsible. They have the essential characteristics of the psychopath but seem to refrain from serious anti-social behaviour.
Researchers have identified many politicians and business leaders as non-criminal psychopaths. They are duplicitous, but not illegally so. They show many patterns of misconduct but seem not to get caught. They seem brilliant at tactical impression management and are drawn to unstable, chaotic, rapidly changing situations where they can more easily operate. Successful, non-incarcerated psychopaths seem to have compensatory factors that buffer them against criminal behaviour like higher social class and intelligence. They can talk, buy, threaten, coerce or convince their way out of most consequences. In this sense the successful psychopath has a wider set of coping mechanisms than less privileged and able psychopaths who soon get caught.
Self-report measures of the psychopathic personality give a clear indication of the sort of behaviours that are relevant (Benning et al., 2003).
Figure 7.7 Behaviours of the Psychopath
These seem to factor into two dimensions: one related to high negative emotionality and the other low behavioural constraint. Further research by Benning et al. (2005) led these authors to think about two distinct facets of the psychopath: fearless dominance (glib, grandiose, deceitful, low stress) and impulsive anti-sociality (aggressive, anti-social, low control). This suggests that within the psychopath population one may be able to distinguish between these two groups.
Anti-social (psychopathic) managers show a blatant and consistent disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others. They often have a history of being difficult, delinquent or dangerous. They show a failure to conform to most social norms and frequently, if not bright or privileged, get into trouble with the law for lying, stealing and cheating. They are always deceitful, as indicated by repeated use of aliases and ‘conning others’ for personal profit or pleasure. They can be, in short, nasty, aggressive, con artists – the sort who often get profiled on business crime programmes.
Psychopaths are also massively impulsive and fail to plan ahead. They live only in, and for, the present. They show irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults. They manifest a surprising reckless disregard for the physical and psychological safety of self and others – or the business in general. In an environment that values risk taking they are clearly in their element. They are famous for being consistently irresponsible. Repeated failure to sustain consistent work behaviour or to honour financial obligations is their hallmark. Most frustrating of all, they show lack of remorse. They are indifferent to or cleverly rationalise having hurt, mistreated or stolen from another. They never learn from their mistakes. It can seem as if labelling them as antisocial is a serious understatement.
It is an interesting question to try to understand in what sorts of jobs psychopathic traits might be, at least for a time, advantageous. This may refer both to the type of job but also a particular situation such as when an organisation is changing rapidly, in decline, or under investigation. They like outwitting the system – opportunistically exploiting who and what they can. They usually hate routine and administration, which are seen as drudgery. No wonder people who work for them feel so demoralised.
They make bad bosses and bad partners because they are egocentric and only continue on in a relationship as long as it is good for them. They rarely have long-lasting, meaningful relationships. They have two missing human ingredients which are pretty crucial to a fully functioning person: conscience and compassion. They score very low on agreeableness and conscientiousness. Hence they can be cruel, destructive, malicious and criminal. They are unscrupulous, and are exploitatively self-interested with little capacity for remorse. They act before they think and are famous for their extreme impulsivity.
Dotlick and Cairo (2003) note that the mischievous psychopath knows that the rules are really ‘only suggestions’. They are rebels without a cause, rule breakers who believe rules, laws and other restrictions are tedious and unnecessary. They clearly have destructive impulses and preferences for making impulsive decisions without considering any consequences. They can, and do, speak their mind, use their charms and creativity but for no clear business goal.
How to deal with the psychopath? Dotlick and Cairo (2003) offer four pieces of advice for what is, no doubt a successful psychopath.
• First: encourage them to take ownership for their action and interrogate their rule-breaking, consequence-ignoring behaviours;
• Second: encourage them to think clearly about which rules they will really follow as opposed to break;
• Third: they may benefit from being on the receiving end of the sort of mischief they dish out;
• Fourth: they might benefit from confiding in a coach. We would suggest sophisticated selection techniques to weed them out, or keep them away from positions of power.
Hogan and Hogan (2001) call the antisocial person ‘Mischievous’. They note that these types expect that others will like them and find them charming and they expect to be able to extract favours, promises, money and other resources from other people with relative ease. However, they see others as merely to be exploited, and therefore have problems maintaining commitments and are unconcerned about social, moral and economic expectations. They are self-confident to the point of feeling invulnerable, and have an air of daring and sang-froid that others can find attractive and even irresistible. In industries where bold risk-taking is expected they can seem a very desirable person for senior management positions.
Babiak and Hare (2006) believe that psychopaths are indeed attracted to business. They devised a questionnaire to help people at work spot them. There are, according to the authors, ten markers of the problem. The successful, industrial psychopath is characterised by the following. He or she:
• Comes across as smooth, polished and charming;
• Turns most conversations around to a discussion of him or herself;
• Discredits and puts down others in order to build up their own image and reputation;
• Lies to co-workers, customers, or business associates with a straight face;
• Considers people he or she has outsmarted or manipulated as dumb or stupid;
• Opportunistic; hates to lose, plays ruthlessly to win;
• Comes across as cold and calculating;
• Acts in an unethical or dishonest manner;
• Has created a power network in the organisation and uses it for personal gain;
• Shows no regret for making decisions that negatively affect the company, shareholders, or employees.
Psychopaths can easily look like ideal leaders: smooth, polished, charming. They can quite easily mesh their dark side – bullying, amoral, and manipulative. In the past it may be politics, policing, law, media and religion that attracted psychopaths, but more and more it is the fast-paced, exciting, supposedly glamorous world of business.
7.10 A Final Note on Derailment
It’s important to remember that not all derailment happens because of ‘dark side’ personality traits or deliberate malfeasance. Leaders and experts can, like anyone else, become victims of circumstance. Leadership roles particularly involve not just power, influence and prestige but can also become straw man positions of blame. It’s one of the risks of leadership. When a company or organisation has a general humiliation, the top level leader is the automatic target for blame. The leader must take ultimate responsibility and bear the consequences. As we now know, the best leaders are not autocrats with eyes and ears everywhere in the organisation. Good leaders cannot be omniscient and should not seek to be omnipotent. So, things can go wrong, external factors can take over and internal issues can be missed.
Leaders have the unique pleasure of getting most of the praise from success, but will be personally responsible for failure in the organisation. This is why it is so important to distinguish between a good person and the right person. It’s easy for a leader to get on the wrong track, either by their own mistakes or by other circumstances. Someone who has much experience, many of the right traits and is very intelligent can miss important signs of impending doom and plunge headlong onto a track that will lead to failure. Or, a leader may see the warning signs but feel they cannot change the circumstances.
Sometimes it is hard to spot the warning signs. So, look for history of failure and how failure was handled. How they have handled difficult times in the past and how they have persevered and recovered. Have they learned lessons from the failure, and are they able to apply those lessons in the future? A formal interview is not always the best time to ask people about their past failures because the context demands certain types of presentation (discussed in Chapter 8 and 9). But for internal candidates, it is probably possible to discuss previous failures in a more informal, honest context.
If the person believes they have never failed, or are not willing to acknowledge a failure (won’t call a fail a fail), then there may be issues ahead. If there are more serious challenges in the future they might not recognise (or they may not be willing to acknowledge) when they are laying down the tracks to derailment, whereas others should be able to critically evaluate their past performance, recognise their own success and others’ successes, and be able to change course before it is too late. Never underestimate the importance of the capacity to take responsibility, apologise, and commit (honestly) to doing a better job next time.
Finally there are three indicators of problems ahead. The psychiatrists say they underlie all the personality disorders like narcissist, psychopath, obsessive compulsive and paranoid. They are not difficult to spot if you ask the right questions and collect the right data.
First, can the person ‘do relationships’? Do they have a history in the workplace and out, in past and in the present of being able to initiate and maintain good healthy relationships? Are they socially skilled, emotionally intelligent and able to understand, enjoy and benefit from friends and acquaintances? Have they built a support group who they support in turn?
Despite their often considerable superficial charm psychopaths can’t sustain relationships of any sort. They often leave paths of amazing psychological destruction behind them. They consistently lie, hood-wink, and bamboozle. They are particularly dangerous when they are articulate, educated and good-looking. Narcissists don’t do relationships because they are so caught up in themselves: so demanding of adulation that they have no time for reciprocation.
It is not difficult to find out about a person’s relationship management through references and careful questioning. The issue is not only the forming of relationships through ‘networking’, but the ability to develop and sustain healthy, reciprocal relationships. You can see it at school and university. The potentially dangerous and derailing leader usually has a history of using people for their own ends. Selfish, manipulative and often psychologically abusive
Second, are they self-aware? Do they have a reasonably accurate image of themselves at least compared to the judgements of others? Are they realistic about their talents? Do they significantly over or under-estimate things like their attractiveness to others or their moral rectitude?
Figure 7.8 Dimensions of Potential, Revised
Figure 7.9 Indicators of Dark Side Traits
The use of multi-source feedback, sometimes called 360-feedback, helps get at this issue. Most people over-estimate their strengths and under-estimate their ‘developmental opportunities’. That is both normal (in the statistical sense) and may even be psychologically healthy. But the question lies in the size and nature of the disparity between their view and those of others. Or indeed their view versus some behavioural or test measures.
Narcissists of course grossly overestimate their abilities, charm and decision-making. Psychopaths believe they are both moral and working in the interests of others. Many a derailing leader has found that their very strong self-esteem helped them climb the greasy pole but pulled them down once they were ‘found out’.
Third, is the issue of adaptation and flexibility? Success, unlike failure can be a poor teacher. Individuals, like organisations, with a strong history of success are too often tempted to do what they always did, in the hope that the good results will be repeated. The ability to learn from experience is a crucial sign of success and failure.