Darkness and Chaos: The Psychopath’s Friends
Ginny sat in her office reviewing the interview schedule for the day. She pulled Al’s material out of the stack and flipped through the folder. She sighed as she read the file. Another one of these, she thought, anticipating the boredom she would feel during the conversation. But, maybe he’ll surprise me.
The receptionist rang Ginny and informed her that Al was in the waiting room. Ginny went to get him, files in hand, and led him back to her office through the maze of cubicles, copiers, and conference rooms. “Did you find the building okay?” she asked, smiling.
“Hard to miss, actually,” Al said, with a slightly sarcastic tone as he looked around the department layout.
They got to Ginny’s office and she gestured toward a chair for Al. He glanced around, obviously disappointed at the small size of the space, the stacks of paper and files, and the low-cost metal furniture. Al hadn’t seen anything like this in years; as VP of finance for Acme Tech, he had grown accustomed to oak, mahogany, and teak. “Nice office,” he said, faking a smile.
Ginny reviewed the information Al had provided on the forms. As she worked her way through his employment history, she asked pointed questions about the responsibilities he had in various jobs, the types of things he could do, and his interactions with others. She also asked about his family and upbringing. “We were dirt poor,” Al said proudly, “and I worked my way through college and supported my mom and younger sisters, as well. I had to become the man of the house very early because my father was a drunkard and left us high and dry.” Ginny took careful notes as Al spoke, occasionally referring to her prepared set of questions.
“What kind of work are you doing now?” she inquired.
“I’m doing a bit of consulting, not much actually. I’m looking for the right fit.”
“What kind of job would be the best fit for you, then?” she asked, checking a few boxes on her worksheet and writing in some comments.
“Vice President–Finance,” Al started to say, but paused when he saw Ginny stop writing mid-word. “What? That’s the job I had at Acme Tech—why should I settle for less? I have a lot of financial experience; I have a long record of accomplishment, as you can see on my résumé. A company would be very smart to hire someone with my experience. I just had a turn of bad luck; not really my fault, as you know reading my cover letter. There were some bad actors on the executive team at Acme; they put the blame on me because I had been tough on them. I was clearly the strongest leader the company had had in a long while, so they framed me.”
Ginny continued making notes and asked a few more questions. “So you can be a tough boss?”
Al was ready for this question. It was his time to make his pitch: “You bet I can be tough—like getting my staff to work long hours and go the extra mile for the good of the company!” he said, beaming. “But, I’m not tough on everyone. Some people don’t respond to tough love, you know—they need to be coddled. I do that too,” he said, nodding. “A leader needs flexibility—I was nice to the big guys and, when it suited my agenda, hard on the little people. Little people like strong leaders; it makes them feel comfortable.”
Ginny glanced at the clock on the wall over Al’s head. Seeing this, Al continued, speaking very quickly, “I have the style, the smarts, and the looks to carry off any VP job. I worked hard my entire career and wasn’t afraid to confront the competition. If you want to be successful, you have to be ambitious,” Al said, leaning forward and gesturing, “and stab the competition in the back, right? I showed them I could run with the wolves and not falter if I met someone who stood in my way. I made hard decisions others didn’t like, and then wasn’t afraid to use their disagreements to uncover their disloyalty to the company.” Al leaned back in his chair, paused, and said, “I always supported the company; I talked up company goals, objectives, mission, and vision and whatever the hell else they thought was important. I was always a team player, as well. I kept the important ones in the loop and proved my loyalty repeatedly. It paid off because I got the promotions, the big salary, the nice offices, cars, and all that stuff. It’s hard for me to admit”—Al paused, dramatically—“but they were fooling me all along and I never knew it. I never realized they were really a bunch of crooks and they were using me—I was the fall guy.”
Ginny interrupted Al and began to close the meeting. “Here is your copy of the consent form and a copy of the judgment. You’re expected to pay restitution in regular installments. We’ll work out the specific schedule during our next meeting. You’ll need to look for a job and bring me a list of companies you’ve applied to, with phone numbers I can call to verify. We’ll meet every week, here in my office, until you are settled, and then biweekly. I’ve signed you up for counseling and they will meet with you once we’re through here. You’ll meet with them weekly in a group setting, and take some course work on managing your finances and anger management, as well. They will report to me how you’re doing. Do you have any questions?”
“No,” Al said, feigning a humble smile. “I know what I have to do and, trust me, I’ll pay everything back. My goal is to regain my integrity. Thank you for helping me and seeing my side of things.”
Ginny rose as the counselor arrived at the appointed time. “Hello,” he said to Al, “come with me. I’ll introduce you to some of the others.”
As Al left with the counselor, Ginny finished her notes. She added a few more observations, completed the assessment, and closed the file, placing it on top of one of the many piles surrounding her desk. No surprise about his personality, she thought.
As she walked to the break room to get another cup of coffee, she ran into a fellow probation officer. “How was your morning?” her colleague asked.
“You know, these white-collar guys are the worst,” she said. “They get their hand slapped, never do time, brag about it, blame everyone but themselves, and then, once they land another job, do it all over again. What an attitude; give me a car thief any day over these guys—at least they’re honest.”
Discussion Questions
Is Corporate Psychopathy on the Rise?
Not all psychopaths turn to a life of crime and only about 15 to 20 percent of incarcerated criminals have psychopathic personalities. Yet during the early part of the twenty-first century, it would seem that the number of economic crimes has soared as headlines revealed major corporate fraud across the nation and around the world. In addition, there are potentially many more, such as the case of Al, that did not rise to the level of a major headline. What are the reasons for this? Has the number of corporate psychopaths increased over the years?
One possible explanation is that we have become much better at identifying psychopathic features in individuals. Since its creation, investigators and clinicians have used the PCL-R and its derivatives in more than one thousand studies, yet as of this writing, only one focused on the corporate psychopath (see Chapter 9 for a detailed review of this research). Another, more systemic possibility is that the overall business environment has changed over the years such that psychopathic traits and behaviors have become more acceptable.
Psychological Employment Contract
People join large organizations because of the many benefits they offer: the chance to build a career, access to financial and technical resources individuals rarely acquire on their own, and the opportunity for advancement. The “psychological contract” that defined employment in the 1940s–1970s included job security, health and pension benefits, and employment for life. The “gold watch” received upon retirement was one of the symbols awarded those who worked hard, did a quality job, and followed the rules. Loyalty and competence were the foundations of this contract and it afforded employees feelings of security, trust, and respect, and provided employers the well-trained and experienced workforce they needed to compete successfully.
Management theories popular at this time focused on maintaining the psychological contract by building and enhancing employees’ self-esteem, listening and responding to their ideas, and capitalizing on basic human needs, such as security, social interaction, career advancement, and self-actualization, a term that captured the psychological need to achieve one’s own potential in life. During the late 1970s, team-based models of management replaced traditional command-and-control hierarchies. Employees made their own decisions affecting their work, and organizations began to integrate systems and processes into their culture, such as quality circles and participative management that linked the most important elements of employee satisfaction to company profits.
Three to five percent turnover seemed normal, and was managed through recruitment, placement, and career development programs. Technological changes were relatively slow during this period, so it was possible to manage them effectively. Major business changes sometimes required replacing employees with those better educated in the latest technology, but given enough time and resources, it was possible to retrain many current employees to meet the challenges. Many organizations and most people were able to adapt quite well, and, though stretched, it was possible to maintain the psychological contract. Then the nature of change itself changed.
Change Is a Fact of Life
The rate of change in business—and many other aspects of life—accelerated dramatically during the 1980s and the 1990s. New technologies began to advance faster than many organizations’ ability to keep pace. The changes came too quickly and there were too many of them at once. There seemed to be no calm between the storms, and little time to deal with today’s frustration before another storm hit. The demand for better-quality and lower-cost products increased beyond the ability of many companies to cut costs and still meet quality and delivery demands. Government controls increased in many areas. Advances in computerization, in particular, led to dramatic social changes among the workforce as well.
Some of this change has had a positive effect. The Internet opened a completely new world of exploration and study. People no longer have to remember details of this or that, but can search the Internet while at dinner in a restaurant to resolve a discussion about some disputed fact. Commerce has advanced to the point where people can shop or do their banking at home at any time of night or day, and small entrepreneurial companies have grown in number as markets opened up, once thought out of reach. Education—on just about everything—is now available to a greater number of individuals around the globe.
There also have been negative effects of this accelerating rate of change. Large organizations had to reinvent themselves quickly in order to remain competitive. In a defensive maneuver, some corporations merged, acquired other companies, or moved operations offshore just to maintain their financial position. A large number of people lost their jobs, which dramatically altered the overall economy as well as society in general.
The operational impact of this period of instability was that there seemed to be little time to design and build new and more efficient policies, procedures, and systems before the next changes came about. In contrast to old-style bureaucratic organizations built on stability, consistency, and predictability, the new transitional organizations had to give up these “luxuries,” and to become more fluid in the face of an unstable, inconsistent, and unpredictable future. In order to just survive, therefore, many bureaucratic processes were jettisoned because they were no longer effective (or efficient), and supporting them with time and energy could no longer be justified. Organizations got “flatter” as middle management positions were eliminated in an effort to streamline decision-making. Companies outsourced or moved entirely support services out of the region to save time and money. This degree of change did not allow leaders to maintain the same commitments to long-term employment as their predecessors. A dwindling workforce had to do more with less, or else join their colleagues who lost their jobs. At some point along the way, the psychological contract gave way to a world where the employee–employer relationship became a transitory one rather than a long-term partnership. People and their skills were now commodities whose value could vary with the prevailing demands of technology. This dramatically affected executives, managers, and employees emotionally, psychologically, and socially—causing even the most confident people to feel that they had lost control of their lives.
Are We There Yet?
A state of chaos occurs when business or industry upheaval overtakes an organization’s ability to respond effectively. Few of us are ready to handle chaotic change effectively, and evolution has not been very helpful, moving at its own slow pace. When thrust into chaotically changing situations, we, as employees and managers, experience intense feelings of frustration, stress, loss of control, and anxiety.
Now imagine that rapid change becomes the rule rather than the exception. Yesterday’s change is changing today, and will change again tomorrow; there is seemingly no light at the end of the tunnel. Companies that once focused on determining the ideal “vision” of the future organization now find themselves in a constant state of transitioning. Furthermore, not everything changes at the same rate, and interrelated elements become unglued, adding confusion to an already unstable time. As a result, organizations in a constant state of transitioning are characterized by outdated, unenforceable, or nonexistent work rules and policies; inconsistent risk taking; greater tolerance for controversial, perhaps even abusive, behaviors; and antiquated measurement systems and communication networks. At best, the ideal future states of these organizations are fuzzy; at worst, it is chaos.
Who succeeds in this environment, in this new culture of change? Most management experts agree that in order to survive the chaos, employees, managers, and executives must adopt constant change as a work style and lifestyle—the management term for this is embrace change. They must become faster thinkers, more assertive and persuasive. They must become much more creative, capable of designing, developing, building, and selling new products and services to meet ever-changing demands in a world of fierce competition and highly selective buyers. They must learn to feel comfortable making faster decisions with less information, and recover from mistakes more quickly. They must be willing to live with the consequences, even if they risk failure. They must take control of their own careers by reassessing their talents and skills and then repackaging them for the new marketplace. While our parents and grandparents worked for one or two companies for their entire lives, we must be ready to move through six or seven.
Organizations that survive chaotic times are those whose employees not only grow comfortable with uncertainty, but also can build systems, processes, and structures capable of anticipating it and flexible enough to respond to it (that is, change again, as necessary). In order to do this, successfully transitioning companies need fewer superfluous rules (which hold back progress) and clearer mission-critical rules (which keep the business on track). They need a much more meaningful set of guiding principles that managers can use to make informed decisions when new problems and unique situations arise. Having clear, shared values and sticking to them unwaveringly is the key. So who succeeds in this tumultuous business environment? See S 7.1: Opportunity Knocks.
Enter the Entrepreneur, Stage Right
At the top of our “success list” would be individuals with entrepreneurial spirit, those who enjoy change, the challenges it brings, and the opportunities it affords. Entrepreneurs, whether in business or science, seem to have very high tolerance for frustration. Contrary to popular belief, though, not all entrepreneurs start their own companies with their own or investor money. In fact, there is evidence that many entrepreneurial types can be very effective working within big companies, particularly those that are willing to make some accommodations for their needs. Entrepreneurial types require access to resources, a continuous stream of challenges to do new and exciting things, personal recognition for success, feedback about failures, and, most of all, freedom to act. While these accommodations are difficult for old-style bureaucracies to offer, the transitioning organization—forced to make changes to its business model, anyway—is in an ideal position to adopt these new approaches. By replacing the long-abandoned employment-for-life psychological contract with the new entrepreneurial psychological contract, transitioning organizations are better able to gain the flexibility needed to survive chaos. This requires treating employees as individual contributors, responsible for their own career advancement, and rewarding them with large salaries for innovative, fast-paced problem-solving—as well as the chance to work on new, exciting projects. The symbiosis of employees with entrepreneurial talents and the transitioning organization can lead to the constant reinventing, rebuilding, and reenergizing that both need for survival and growth. If well managed (using new management techniques, of course, not old ones), the results can be impressive.
Unfortunately, this business model is far easier to theorize about than to actually implement. There are several reasons for this, all of them very human. It is very difficult to convince current executives, managers, and employees that they should give up their need for safety and security—no longer part of the contract—in exchange for a model in which their skills and abilities may not be worth anything tomorrow, and the company feels no obligation to retain them. Therefore, it is difficult for a company to regain employee loyalty, especially once it has breached the employment-for-life psychological contract and substituted an entrepreneurial psychological contract. Management credibility, one of the foundations of employee loyalty, is also now open to question—“How come they let the company get into this situation?” and “Didn’t they see this coming?” are recurring questions those in control must constantly face from the workforce if they expect to attract and retain talented entrepreneurs. Finally, those with power and authority rarely will give it up willingly, even in service of the greater good of the organization.
These individuals may feel threatened by the erosion of their own positions, and can sabotage the transition by virtue of their sense of entitlement. (President George Washington is one of the few great leaders who rejected “kingship” and refused to continue as president once he felt he had completed his job. Contrast this with dictators, would-be dictators, and ambitious politicians.) Organizations often look to much younger and less experienced new employees in order to find those with entrepreneurial spirit. This is easier and less expensive than converting those already on board because candidates from a younger generation bring with them a comfort level dealing with technological change, having dealt with it their entire lives. Understandably, current employees may not want to support the new entrepreneurial employees, who seem to be getting more attention than they ever got themselves. At the very least, this may create envy among the current staff, especially when asked to give up precious resources (such as plum projects, money, and staff) they may have fought long and hard to acquire. And then, all of this assumes that companies can find individuals who truly possess entrepreneurial talents in the marketplace, a task far more difficult than expected as competition for them is fierce and there are many young candidates who view themselves as entrepreneurial but lack the necessary experience and credentials.
Enter the Psychopath, Stage Left
Here is where the corporate psychopath fits into the story. Would someone with a psychopathic personality, turned off by earning an honest living in general, even be interested in joining one of these transitioning companies? Unfortunately, the answer we found is yes, as organizations have become more psychopath-friendly in recent years. Rapid business growth, increased downsizing, frequent reorganizations, mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures have inadvertently increased the number of attractive employment opportunities for individuals with psychopathic personalities—without the need for them to correct or change their psychopathic attitudes and behaviors.
What is it about the psychopath that makes these new organizations so attractive to them? To start with, their thrill-seeking nature (research has shown it to be genetically determined) draws them to situations where there is a lot of stimulus: a lot is happening and happening quickly. Then, as consummate rule breakers they can capitalize on the lessened reliance on firm rules and policies and the increased need for free-form decision-making that characterize organizations in a chaotic state. And, as seekers of power, they take advantage of individuals psychologically and emotionally weakened due to the chaos in ways that are not always obvious. In particular, the opportunity to get a leadership or management position is extremely attractive because these positions offer the psychopaths a chance to exert control over people and resources, they tend not to require involvement in the details, and they command larger-than-average salaries. Because a leader’s ability to get people to do things is often of more importance than his or her technical capabilities to perform work tasks, psychopaths lacking in real work expertise are not disadvantaged. Others often accept at face value their leadership talents and their phony or exaggerated backgrounds.
Most importantly, they can hide amongst the chaos. While leadership may seem like an easy job to a psychopath, requiring little more than the application of his or her natural conning and manipulation skills, in reality it involves much more talent, skill, and experience. But the constantly changing state of the business, the chaos, works in their favor, clouding the difference between “good” and “bad” leadership, allowing them to move about the organization through rapid promotions and transfers faster than the performance on their current jobs can be measured, evaluated, and handled. Short-term results, or what looks like results, can be deceiving, especially if cleverly presented. This is especially true when the performance measurement systems themselves are in a state of flux or perhaps nonexistent, as they often are in transitioning organizations. Furthermore, their irresponsible risk-taking and narcissistic, callous decision-making contributes to the anxiety level of coworkers, leaving followers scrambling to figure out what to do next.
Psychopaths can enter, thrive on, and hide within the chaos of transitioning organizations easier than one would think. Would an organization in need of strong leadership hire a psychopath? Not willingly, of course, but because their presentation during the interviewing process, their persona, looks like an ideal leadership candidate to a company seeking entrepreneurial leadership they can slip in under the radar. Their psychopathic fiction takes the form of “savior” of the company.
Likewise, the corporate psychopath on staff, having already created a persona of the ideal employee in the minds of executives and employees alike, can easily morph into a high-energy, visionary, entrepreneurial leader. With this label, conning or bullying others can seem like an effective management style, especially when coworkers are paralyzed by the chaotic change surrounding them, caught in their personal frustrations, and unable or unwilling to accept the new business model. In contrast to the rest of the organization’s members, the corporate psychopath looks like a knight on a white horse, cool, calm, and confident. Their self-serving bravado and the mystique that surrounds them cloud the fact that the efforts of psychopaths rarely result in long-term business improvements.
In conclusion, situations where there is stimulation and high drama and where the rules are lax or nonexistent are magnets for psychopaths. Add dramatic organizational change to the normal levels of organizational job insecurity, personality clashes, and political battling, and the resulting chaotic milieu provides both the necessary stimulation and sufficient cover for their entry and subsequent psychopathic game playing.
Secrecy: The Psychopath’s Friend
There is another aspect of organizational life that facilitates the entry, manipulation, and deceit of the psychopath and it is secrecy. Secrecy is a part of organizational life. The need for secrecy is quite understandable and often is an integral part of the organization’s procedures, as in the case of protecting trade secrets from competitors or keeping detailed financials confidential during premerger negotiations. Some secrecy is defensive in nature, as when a decision is made that will negatively affect some individuals, and the resulting action needs to take place before there is forewarning, as is often the case with terminations. Some secrecy is inadvertent, though, such as when events happen faster than the organization’s communication mechanisms can respond. As a result, people are left in the dark and unable to do their jobs properly. In these cases, those in the know may not intend to keep secrets; they simply do not have the opportunity or time to share the information with others.
During times of chaotic change, when more information is better than less, secrecy will increase the vulnerability of organizations to psychopathic manipulation. Regardless of the appropriateness of the secrecy, the impact often is an increase in the levels of distrust among employees, a reduction in the levels of management credibility or perceived trustworthiness in the eyes of those kept in the dark, and an increase in mistakes made due to lack of timely, accurate information.
Secrecy is the psychopath’s friend. The success of psychopathic manipulation, especially in large groups of people, depends on maintaining a cloak of secrecy about what is really going on. A culture of secrecy in an organization makes it much easier for psychopaths to hide and much harder for management to catch them in their lies, to accurately rate their performance, or to see the abuse they heap on coworkers. To the degree that transitioning organizations increase their level of secrecy, they run the risk of providing cover to corporate psychopaths who have entered their ranks.
Discussion Questions
S 7.1
Opportunity Knocks
Many devastating events, from hurricanes to floods, fires, wars, terrorism, economic crises, volcanic eruptions, epidemics, and so forth, strike the world every year. Such events bring out the best and the worst in people. There is no shortage of common thugs, criminals, imposters, corrupt officials, and sundry predators ready to make a buck out of someone else’s tragedy. Some of their depredations no doubt result from poverty, mob mentality, and understandable survival instincts. However, for many psychopaths—on the street and in the boardroom—their egregious acts stem from an opportunity too good to pass up.
Consider this exchange from Season 3, Episode 6 (2013), The Game of Thrones:
Lord Varys: “Chaos? A gaping pit willing to swallow us all.”
Petyr “Littlefinger” Baelish: “Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder.”
Many viewers of the TV series have offered their interpretations of this exchange on the Internet. In general, the view is that Varys is Machiavellian and achieves his power and influence through scheming, patience, and the gathering of information for future use. Petyr, on the other hand, is more psychopathic and present-oriented. He sees chaos as a direct means to gain power, status, and influence. In a chaotic world, he is able to spot and use opportunities, to revise his loyalties to fit the situation, and to manipulate situations and people in order to further his own prestige, power, and self-interest.1 Actually, most of the main characters in Game of Thrones are like Varys and Petyr, in one way or another, all given to scheming, violence, and brutality when it suits their self-serving goals. For example, “Cersei Lannister is a psychopath who sleeps with her brother. But admit it to yourself. You love her. We all do...perhaps it’s because, on some level, we secretly admire her ruthlessness.”2
The point here is that psychopaths are emotionally unaffected by the human physical and psychological carnage that accompanies chaotic disasters. They are, by nature, predisposed to take callous but pragmatic advantage of the turmoil and terror experienced by others.