I’m Not a Psychopath, I Just Talk and Act Like One
Smith charged down the hall toward his office. Marching past the staff without a glance, he reached the door and barked for his secretary to have Jones come to his office immediately. His face getting red, Smith threw the files onto the desk and dropped into his big chair with a huff.
Minutes later Jones arrived, half knowing what to expect, but not knowing why. There were stories about Smith’s calling staff members into his office to read them the riot act after a senior management meeting, but since Jones’s projects were not on the agenda, this couldn’t be the reason for the summoning. So far, all her interactions with Smith had been cordial; there was no reason to suspect a change.
Smith’s secretary greeted Jones and led the way to the office door. Smith motioned Jones to enter and the door closed behind them. The secretary went back to her desk and resumed typing. She glanced at the staff member sitting at the desk to her left and the staff member to her right and sighed. Everyone knew what was about to happen.
The “scoldings,” as the support staff called them, occurred roughly once a week, usually on Friday afternoons after the morning senior management meeting. Smith was never happy after these meetings, but no one was sure why, as the minutes were kept quite secret. Obviously, someone was chewing him out at these meetings and he felt the need to take it out on members of his staff; how else could the staff explain it?
Jones was a very likable person. She was the newest addition to the staff and had come to the firm with outstanding references and portfolio. She was always nice to everyone, with a cheerful disposition and an even temperament. She had survived almost three months without being called to Smith’s office—an unofficial record by all accounts.
The secretaries jumped in unison when the first binder hit the trash can. Throwing projects into the trash was one of the dramatic things Smith did to accentuate his disappointment, disapproval, and disgust with the work product. The effect is powerful at the time, especially with the professional staff, who take great pride in their binders and presentations. Soon the voices started to penetrate the air—loud voices: first Smith’s and then Jones’s, then back and forth, then a bit of quiet, then more loudness. It was always hard to hear the exact words through the walls, but occasionally one or two would slip through. Sometimes curse words, but not this time.
Smith had studied Jones long enough to know that foul language would not work on her; he was shrewd—he had to wear her down with intellect. He had to convince her that her work was less than optimal or even rather poor. He would threaten her with reassignment, demotion, or termination, but would leave the door open for her to redeem herself down the road. He would convince her, of course, of all these things, as no one left Smith’s office until he was convinced. Jones could not pretend to be convinced—she would actually have to be convinced—and she would, eventually. Moreover, she would be thankful for Smith’s help and guidance. Jones would fall into line as her coworkers and predecessors; Smith counted on it.
Smith prided himself on his ability to break people down and then build them up again—but not too far up, just enough to keep them on a leash. He needed to control people and couldn’t stand it when someone had a thought, an idea, an insight that he, “the boss,” should have had. He hated to be wrong, as well—and, of course, in his own mind, never was. At least this was the theory some of the staff members had developed about Smith. Others were more humorous: some hypothesized about his being dropped on his head by the doctor who delivered him, having been raised by wolves, left in a field by aliens, or bitten by a mad dog in his youth. Humor helped make the situation tolerable but did not always heal the psychological wounds. It was much harder for some than others to come to terms with Smith’s behavior.
He did not confine his attacks to the office. Those on his staff—almost half of the company—were fair game just walking the halls, working in meetings, or sitting in their cubicles. When Smith entered a department, a veil of tension seemed to spread through the atmosphere; heads went down and people acted busier than they really were. It was even money that he would strike out with a rapid onset of rage, followed by an equally rapid return to calm and a grin. But, sometimes he just made the rounds of the offices smiling, wishing people well, asking about their kids’ soccer practice, and just being nice. It was so disconcerting. The new staff always fell for this approach and often concluded that Smith was a warm, caring, easy-to-talk-to boss. No one dared warn them, however, about what lay behind the smiling exterior, for no one was sure who might be one of Smith’s spies.
What really irked everyone was the fact that sometimes Smith was right. His ideas sometimes really were better than the staff’s, and sometimes he did know more than they did. Nevertheless, all would agree, there were other, less venomous, ways to communicate that didn’t involve the destruction of the egos of staff or morale of those trying to do a good job for the company.
Jones seemed to have a solid ego, not overly inflated like some or shrinking like others, quite healthy by most accounts, and she was definitely working her hardest to do a good job. The secretaries wondered how Jones would handle it.
Sounds of a few more crashes, yelling and shouting, and desk-pounding came through the wall. Then silence. The secretaries lowered their heads to their desks and computer screens as they heard the door open. Jones emerged, standing as tall as she could, but clearly taken aback by what had just transpired. She headed down the hall quickly, clasping her folders to her chest.
As if on cue, the secretaries rose in unison. They each, taking their handbags, headed down the hall toward the women’s room. Smith’s secretary indicated to the wide-eyed part-timer to watch the phones and handle any visitors. “It’ll be okay,” she said, realizing that the young person didn’t really want to be left alone in the office.
At the door to the restroom, they stopped but did not go in. Jones was far senior to them, and their relationships were strictly professional. After a few knowing looks, the two junior secretaries returned to their desks. Today, Smith’s secretary would stand guard and not let anyone interfere with Jones’s privacy.
Discussion Questions
How Big Is this Problem?
Following training programs and talks, audience members frequently approach us. Because of what they just had learned about the traits and characteristics of psychopathy, they conclude that their boss, peer, or subordinate must be a psychopath. Although it is neither appropriate nor even possible for us to offer an opinion, we understand the audacious behaviors attributed to their coworkers by these individuals—and the similarities they exhibit to psychopathic behavior. Over the years, additional individuals have contacted us with similar concerns after having read about psychopaths in Without Conscience, Snakes in Suits, or in various popular books on psychopathy, newspapers, and business magazines. Some of the personal stories we hear most likely are descriptions of true psychopaths, but, of course, many are not. What is clear is that a large number of people believe that they do work for a boss, or with a coworker, from hell.
We estimate that about 1 percent of the population has a dose of psychopathic features heavy enough to warrant a designation of psychopathy. Perhaps another 10 percent or so fall into the gray zone, with sufficient psychopathic features to be of concern to others. Most people have very few or no psychopathic characteristics. What about the business world? (See Figure 9.1). There can be no simple answer to this question, for the philosophy and practices of organizations range from ethical and altruistic to callous and grasping, perhaps even “psychopathic.” Presumably, the former would have fewer resident psychopaths than would the latter, although no doubt there are exceptions. For example, a religious or charitable organization—by its nature trusting and lacking in street smarts—might provide a comfortable niche for a smooth-talking, charismatic psychopath as illustrated in a case presented earlier.
Unfortunately, there is a dearth of scientific evidence concerning the number of psychopaths in business, for several reasons. First, few organizations will provide the sort of access to their staff and files required to do proper assessments with a standardized instrument, such as the PCL: SV. Second, psychopaths have a talent for hiding their true selves, so one could expect many to go unnoticed and uncounted, leading to an under-reporting of psychopathy in business. It may be only the patsies (former pawns) who see behind the masks of particularly successful psychopaths, Third, psychopathic-like traits and behaviors are also exhibited by some individuals who are not truly psychopathic, which could lead to over-reporting, that is, viewing someone as a psychopath when he is not. Nonetheless, based on many anecdotal reports and on our own observations, it is likely that psychopathic individuals make up much more than 1 percent of business managers and executives.
Many people display what appear to be psychopathic characteristics; readers need only review themselves against the definitions and descriptions of psychopaths to see how this might be possible. However, we should be careful not to confuse the presence of a few psychopathic-like traits with the disorder itself. How many times have you been abusive at work, but are quite the opposite with your family or life partner? On the other hand, you may be charming and manipulative with business associates, but forthright with friends. You may not feel guilt or remorse while “cheating” on your taxes, but feel terribly guilty if you hurt your child in any way. You may have had to defend a difficult business decision that hurt coworkers but feel badly inside nonetheless. Judging oneself or others because of one or two traits or behaviors that appear to resemble those of psychopaths (but typically are much less severe) is common but not wise. Only a relatively few individuals, true psychopaths, demonstrate most of the expected traits and characteristics in a consistent manner across all aspects of their personal, professional, and social lives.
“Boss from Hell”?
Your boss is cold, hard driving, and ruthless. Before concluding that he is a psychopath, you should carefully consider the possibilities that your judgment is at fault and that his behavior is more a reflection of a personal leadership style than of a psychopathic personality. Because management style is rooted in training and experience, there are as many styles of management as there are managers. It is not surprising, then, that the match between employee expectations of how a boss should act and the supervisory style actually exhibited by the boss is not often perfect, leading to disappointment, conflict, and misinterpretation.
How employees view management or leadership style and its impact on performance and effectiveness has long been the subject of study by organizational psychologists. One of the earliest investigations into the styles of supervisors took place from 1946 to 1956, but the findings still have relevance today.1 Employees described their leaders’ behaviors on the job, and leaders in turn described their own behaviors and attitudes. A large-scale mathematical analysis of the hundreds of descriptions attempted to categorize the responses into the smallest number of critical items. The results of these Ohio State studies showed that there are two large groups of behaviors, or “factors,” that go into our evaluation of our boss’s style. We labeled these factors as Consideration and Initiating Structure.
Consideration refers to those behaviors and attitudes that deal with the interpersonal interactions between employee and boss. Highly considerate bosses treat people with respect, consider the egos and self-esteem of others in their decisions, and build working relationships on mutual trust. Staff perceive bosses low on consideration as uncaring and inconsiderate of the feelings of employees; they seem to be distant and cold. It is easy to see that reports of bosses berating employees in front of others, ignoring them when common courtesy demands otherwise, and failing to build relationships based on mutual trust and respect might actually reflect a boss low on consideration, rather than a true psychopath.
Initiating structure, the second supervisory factor, means that a leader should decide on the work goals and tasks to be completed, flesh out the roles of the team members, and delineate the standards of performance or key success measures—in essence, “lead.” Bosses high in this factor take an active part in determining what needs to be done and how to do it. Traditional boss roles, such as planning, organizing, communicating, setting expectations, and defining the “big picture,” fit in the high end of this factor. A boss who dominates or who issues orders every step of the way may just be too high on initiating structure and not a true psychopath. Conversely, if the boss is rarely involved or even interested in the work you do, she may be very low in this factor—a “laissez-faire leader”—or may not be a leader at all.
Most people want a boss who is considerate and trusting and who builds rapport. Whether we also want our bosses to be high or low on initiating structure depends on whether we want someone to tell us what our job is and how to do it (most appropriate for new jobs or untrained employees) or we prefer to do our job with little interference from the boss (most preferred by seasoned workers). Both are equally valid styles and can be effective as long as there is a match between employees’ needs and the boss’s approach to management.
While this two-factor model of leader behavior is well founded and makes intuitive sense, subsequent research has shown that these two variables alone are not enough to predict who will be an effective leader. The boss–employee relationship is much more complex than this and involves other things, not the least of which is the work situation itself. Yet we all tend to refer to these factors (sometimes by other names) when asked to rate how “good” or “bad” our leaders are.
“Coworkers from Hell”?
“Bad” bosses are not the only people we hear about. We have also heard a lot about coworkers and colleagues with negative attitudes, antisocial tendencies, manipulation, irresponsibility, poor performance, and a tendency to disrupt others who are trying to work. Clearly, these individuals are particularly difficult to work with, but there may be plausible explanations other than psychopathy for their behavior. To understand this we need to consider one of the factors people commonly use when evaluating colleagues and coworkers: industrial psychologists who study it refer to it as conscientiousness.
Individuals who are highly conscientious tend to focus on doing a good job; they like being accurate, timely, and thorough. They take pride in completing the jobs they start, are very responsible and detail oriented, and like to appear to others as competent. Low-conscientiousness coworkers can get sloppy about meeting deadlines, achieving goals, or finishing what they start. They can come across as irresponsible, unfocused, disruptive, and poor performers. Sometimes they rely on others to help them get their work done—or others may feel the need to “cover” for them so as not to hurt the team or department’s overall performance. Clearly, most of us prefer to work next to individuals who are conscientious in their work. It seems fairer to us for others to carry their own weight on the job, especially if they are drawing a salary similar to the one we receive.
A lot of research has shown that conscientiousness is a primary dimension of personality, rather than just a style or personal preference. People vary on this trait as much as they do on other personality traits—we all have various degrees of conscientiousness in our makeup. However, being at the extremely low end or extremely high end of the scale, while disconcerting to some of our coworkers, is not necessarily a bad thing. Your effectiveness at work depends, once again, on the match between your degree of conscientiousness and the specific job you do. Examples of jobs requiring moderate levels of conscientiousness typically include artists, creative research scientists, or visionary leaders because of the need to step out of the box or take risks when creating new works of art, pursuing new knowledge, or leading in uncertain times. Jobs like design engineer and nuclear power plant operator tend to require high degrees of conscientiousness because they manage many important details critical to their success.
While the “fit” between levels in conscientiousness and job requirements may not be perfect in real-life situations, there is no reason to conclude that coworkers low (or high) in conscientiousness (alone) are psychopaths.
Psychopath or Difficult Person: The Assessment Challenge
Individual differences in consideration, structuring, and conscientiousness are normal parts of human behavior in any organization. However, some clusters of psychopathic traits do manifest themselves on the consideration, structuring, and conscientiousness scales. Specifically, many psychopaths would clearly rate very low on consideration (rude, arrogant, and self-centered, among other things), at the extreme for structuring jobs (either uncaring or overbearing), and very low on conscientiousness (irresponsible, impulsive, arrogant, self-centered, and seemingly unwilling to accept responsibility). As we stated before, these factors alone do not indicate psychopathy, but they certainly are warning flags. What else does one need to look for?
In general, psychopaths are all egotistical, having a sense of entitlement and the assertiveness to demand it, which often makes them appear selfish in relationships. They all have a grandiose sense of who they are and insist that others give them the respect due them. They are not as goal oriented as the rest of us when it comes to actual diligence and hard work. Nonetheless, they frequently tell others how ambitious they are and weave a (phony) hard-luck story about how they overcame immense odds growing up poor or underprivileged or from an abusive home. Yet they are all irresponsible when it comes to attending to appropriate behaviors (for example, not doing the job they were assigned or making promises they do not keep), both on and off the job. They rarely, if ever, experience guilt or remorse for any of their transgressions, even the most outrageous and hurtful.
However, some psychopaths are different from others. Some come across as more impulsive or erratic than others do. The more impulsive psychopaths require immediate gratification and use short-term predatory strategies to get what they want. The less impulsive types tend to appear less predatory in their pursuit of gratification, instead relying on opportunities coming to them. This difference is possibly due to different physiological factors, but the exact mechanism is unclear at this time. Some psychopaths (arguably the less intelligent ones) seek to satisfy the most basic instinctual needs, such as food and sex, while others seek higher-level satisfaction in power, control, or fame. Some are more subtle or clever in their manipulations of others, using charm and linguistic skills to get others to obey and conform. Others are blunter, attempting to con in clumsy ways, and then resorting to abusive demands when their “charm” does not work. This latter type acts out their aggressions in violent, vindictive, ruthless ways, while the former are less reactive—perhaps more in control of their inner drives—relying on suggestions, intimidation, and “passive aggression” to get their way.
Cons, Bullies, and the Puppetmaster
When we analyzed the anecdotes and stories from readers and program participants as well as others we have worked with, and then added in our own research, we discovered three distinctive styles of corporate psychopath that seem to fit well into the subtype model.
Some psychopaths, the Corporate Cons, are adept at using others in pursuit of fame, fortune, power, and control. They are deceitful, egotistical, superficial, manipulating, and prone to lying. They do not care about the consequences of their own behavior, rarely thinking about what the future might hold. They never take responsibility, despite promises to deliver on goals, objectives, and personal favors. When confronted, they will blame others for the problem at hand, not accepting responsibility for their actions. They are rude and callous to individuals who have nothing to offer them, feeling superior and entitled. They never think about the harm they inflict on people or institutions, often coming across in interactions as totally devoid of human emotions, especially empathy. To apologize for something they did is foreign to them, as they do not experience remorse or guilt.
Yet, despite all this, the cons can be surprisingly successful in dealing with others, relying primarily on their excellent ability to charm and weave a believable story to influence others. They are adept at reading situations and people, and then modifying their approach to best influence those around them. They can turn on the charm when it suits them and turn it off when they want. Because of their chameleon-like ability to hide their dark side, they can quickly and easily build trusting relationships with others and then take advantage of them or betray them in some way. Manipulators seem to experience a game-like fascination in fooling people, getting into other people’s heads and getting them to do things for them. This ability to win psychological games with people seems to give them a sense of personal satisfaction.
While they may come across as ambitious—a trait they will play up—they actually have few long-range goals of any consequence, relying more on their innate ability to seize an opportunity that interests them at any given moment and then weave it into the story they tell others. Should something else more exciting come along they will move quickly toward the new opportunity, a tendency that can make them look impulsive and irresponsible to observers. While they may blow up at coworkers, flying into a rage and then calming down just as quickly (as if nothing has happened), they can also control their anger if it is in their best interest to do so—saving their vindictiveness for a later time.
Another group of psychopaths is much more aggressive: the Corporate Bullies. Corporate bullies are not as sophisticated, charming, or smooth as the conning type, as they rely on coercion, abuse, humiliation, harassment, aggression, and fear to get their way. They are callous to almost everyone, intentionally finding reasons to engage in conflict, to blame others for things that go wrong, to attack others unfairly (in private and in public), and to be generally antagonistic. They routinely disregard the rights and feelings of others and frequently violate traditional norms of appropriate social behavior. If they do not get their way, they become vindictive, maintaining a grudge for a considerable amount of time, and take every opportunity to “get even.” They frequently select and relentlessly attack relatively powerless targets.
Bullies react aggressively in response to provocation or perceived insults or slights. It is unclear whether their acts of bullying give them pleasure or are just the most effective way they have learned to get what they want from others. Similar to the cons, however, psychopathic Bullies do not feel remorse, guilt, or empathy. They lack any insight into their own behavior, and seem unwilling or unable to moderate it, even when it is to their own advantage. Not being able to understand the harm they do to themselves (let alone their victims), psychopathic Bullies are particularly dangerous.
Of course, not all bullies are psychopathic, though this may be of little concern to the victims. Bullies come in many psychological and physical sizes and shapes. In some cases, “garden-variety” bullies have deep-seated psychological problems, including feelings of inferiority or inadequacy and difficulty in relating to others. Some may simply have learned at an early age that their size, strength, or verbal talent was the only effective tool they had for social behavior. Some of these individuals may be context-specific bullies, behaving badly at work but more or less normally in other contexts. Nevertheless, the psychopathic Bully is what he is: a callous, vindictive, controlling individual with little empathy or concern for the rights and feelings of the victim, no matter what the context.
In addition to these two specific types—the Con and the Bully—we have seen a handful of cases that are even worse. Corporate Puppetmasters, as we labeled them, seem to combine the features of con and bully in a sophisticated way. They are adept at manipulating people—pulling the strings—from a distance, in order to get those directly under their control to abuse or bully those lower down in the organization. In essence, they use both strategies—conning and bullying—much like historical figures such as Stalin and Hitler, individuals who surrounded themselves with obedient followers and through them controlled much of their countries’ populations. Any sign of disobedience (often accentuated by a paranoid temperament) led them to attack their direct supporters as well. To the puppetmaster, both the intermediary (the “puppet”) and the ultimate victim are expendable since he considers neither as a real, individual person. We believe that Corporate Puppetmasters are examples of the much more dangerous classic psychopath. See S 8.1: The Puppetmaster.
Our research has shown that conning psychopaths would do well in business, politics, and other professions because of their ability to convince people they are honest and ethical and have talent, experience, and a flair for leadership. In management positions, bullying psychopaths keep rivals and subordinates at a distance, allowing them to use their power to get what they want. Furthermore, members of top management, not close to the day-to-day action, may hear rumors of such bullying behavior, but discount them as exaggerations due to envy and rivalry, or even accept the behavior as indications of the person’s strong management style. To the degree that bullying psychopaths have bolstered their reputations as major contributors to the successful running of the business, they are immune to criticism or might receive a token “slap on the wrist” occasionally. The puppetmasters are immune to organizational discipline because they themselves are in control of a greater number of employees, as well as systems, processes, and procedures designed to protect the organization and its members.
In our original research working with 203 high-potential executives (see Chapter 9 for a full accounting of this research), we found about 3.9 percent who fit the profile of the psychopath as measured on the PCL-R. While this may not seem like a large percentage, it is considerably higher than that found in the general population (1 percent), and perhaps more than most businesses would want to have on their payrolls, especially as these individuals were on the road to becoming leaders in their organizations. Of these individuals, we found that all had the traits of the conning, manipulative psychopath: superficial, grandiose, deceitful, impulsive, irresponsible, not taking responsibility for their own actions, and lacking goals, remorse, and empathy. Of these individuals, two exhibited bullying, as well. From the cases we have reviewed from others in the field, as well as from readers, this level of incidence seems correct.
Variations on a Theme
It is interesting that the preceding observations bear some resemblance to the results of recent empirical research on “varieties” of psychopathic and other offenders.
We note that this is not merely a statistical exercise but rather a way to identify individuals with things in common, in this case, patterns of psychopathic traits. Most research involves a variable-oriented approach, which looks at correlations and associations among variables. A person-oriented approach, described here, allows us to identify people with various patterns of behavioral and personality traits, and helps us to make predictions about how an individual with a particular pattern will act. In the next chapter, we relate this research to the Babiak, Neumann, and Hare2 study of corporate psychopathy.
The four-factor model of psychopathy allows us to plot an individual’s profile as a score on each factor. Statistical programs (latent profile analyses) sort these profiles into clusters or subtypes according to their similarity to one another. Mokros and colleagues3 analyzed the profiles of offenders with very high PCL-R scores (30 or higher). As Figure 8.1 shows, two profiles or behavioral styles emerged from this analysis.
We considered these clusters to be variations on the central theme of psychopathy. We present them here because some psychopathic executives may have the same two profiles, as depicted in Chapter 9.
Good Leader or Corporate Psychopath: How Can You Tell?
Early research suggested that the behaviors of most psychopaths were too dysfunctional to make long-term survival in organizations possible and that they might be better suited to work on their own or in some other career. However, based on our own research and that of others, we now know that some organizations actively seek out and recruit individuals with at least a moderate dose of psychopathic features. Some executives have said to us, “Many of the traits you describe to us seem to be valued by our company. Why shouldn’t companies hire psychopaths to fill some jobs?” A proper, scientific answer is that more research is needed to determine the impact of various doses of psychopathic characteristics on the performance of different types of jobs (see Chapter 10 for a more detailed discussion of corporate research using the B-Scan assessment instrument). The “optimal” number and severity of such characteristics presumably is higher for some jobs (such as stock promoters, politicians, law enforcement, used-car salespeople, mercenaries, and lawyers) than for others (such as social workers, teachers, nurses, and ministers). Until such research becomes available, we can safely say that those who believe that “psychopathy is good” clearly have not had much exposure to the real thing . . . and certainly have never worked for one.
For an organization, one psychopath, unchecked, can do considerable harm to staff morale, productivity, and teamwork. The problem is that you cannot choose which psychopathic traits you want and ignore the others; psychopathy is a syndrome, that is, a package of related traits and behaviors that form the personality of the individual. Unfortunately, for business the “good” traits often conceal the existence of the “bad” when it comes to a psychopath. However, there are cases in which some individuals fake or simulate bad traits and behaviors in order to “fit in.” See S 8.2: Emulating the Psychopathic Lifestyle.
A true corporate psychopath can easily feign leadership and management traits sought after by executives when making hiring, promotion, and succession planning decisions. A charming demeanor and grandiose talk can be mistaken for charismatic leadership and self-confidence. Furthermore, because of its critical importance to effective leadership, charisma observed in a candidate can lead to a “halo” effect—that is, a tendency for interviewers and decision makers to generalize from a single trait to the entire personality. The halo effect acts to “fill in the blanks” in the absence of other information about the person and can overshadow more critical judgments. As mentioned earlier, even seasoned researchers—who know they are dealing with a psychopath—often accept things at face value.
The ability to influence events and decisions and to persuade peers and subordinates to support your point of view are critical executive management skills. Not everyone has these skills at the level required by general management jobs. Organizations constantly seek people with these skills and invest significant sums of money in training, coaching, and development of staff to improve them. To find someone who seems to have a natural talent for influence and persuasion is rare. When found, it is hard for decision makers to look past it. We know that psychopaths are masters of conning and manipulation—especially with their deceitful veneer of charm—leading to the perception that they have strong persuasion and leadership skills.
Visionary thinking, the ability to conceptualize the future of the organization, is a complex skill requiring a broad perspective, the ability to integrate multiple points of view, and a talent for looking into the future—that is, to think strategically. Psychopaths are not good at establishing and working toward long-term, strategic objectives; they are much more opportunistic. Yet they can weave compelling stories about situations and events of which they know very little into surprisingly believable visions of the future. Because visioning is so difficult for the average person to understand, it is little wonder that the vague but convincing, illogical but believable, rambling but captivating, and compelling but lie-filled discourses of the psychopath can look like brilliant insight into what the organization should do. This is especially true in times of chaos, when few can make these lofty predictions and many are looking for leadership—a savior or knight in shining armor—to fill the vacuum.
History offers some good examples of leaders who embody and are able to apply the complex mix of high-level executive skills necessary to handle difficult situations. In the last and most decisive battle for Gaul, the enemy was mercilessly overpowering Julius Caesar’s army. His troops were significantly outnumbered and they were surrounded; the end seemed near for Caesar and his long campaign to take Gaul. However, seeing that all would be lost, he put on his armor and his bright crimson cloak—so the enemy easily could see him—and led his reserve troops into the middle of the battle. Still outnumbered, his troops rallied, and the enemy soldiers, realizing Caesar himself led the charge, faltered. History records Caesar’s victory, his valor, and his fighting acumen. We know that he was charismatic, a strong orator, influential, and persuasive, and a visionary leader whose strategies military schools teach to this day. Was Caesar a great leader, or did he succeed because of psychopathic impulsivity and extreme risk-taking traits?
It is important to note that psychopaths—like great leaders—are risk takers, often putting themselves and others (in Caesar’s case, his own life and that of his army; in the case of business, the entire company) in harm’s way. Risk-taking, often difficult to quantify or differentiate from foolhardiness, is a trait that closely lines up with what we expect of leaders in times of crisis. How much risk is appropriate? How much risk will be effective in saving the day or, in more mundane business settings, achieving objectives? Another psychopathic trait, impulsivity, accentuates risk-taking behavior, leading to acting without sufficient planning and forethought. Thrill-seeking often involves taking dangerous risks just to see what will happen. Elements of extreme impulsivity and thrill-seeking can also be mistaken for high energy, action orientation, courage, and the ability to multitask, all important management traits.
Despite the risks to his own life, Caesar’s risk-taking behavior in this last battle for Gaul was far from psychopathic. He was a prudent risk taker, sizing up the realities he faced, the resources he (and the enemy) had, the probabilities that would influence the outcome, and the risk to his legion posed by not taking a risk. He was also not a thrill seeker, at least not to the degree exhibited by psychopaths. He and the Roman legion he commanded were a disciplined machine, hardly the image of a rampant leader and his band of psychopaths fighting for the thrill of it.
Psychopaths’ emotional poverty—that is, their inability to feel normal human emotions and their lack of conscience—can be mistaken for three other executive skills, specifically the ability to make hard decisions, to keep their emotions in check, and to remain cool under fire. Making hard decisions is one of those management tasks that executives have to do on almost a daily basis. Whether it is to choose one marketing plan over another, litigate or settle a lawsuit, or close a manufacturing plant, major decisions have emotional components that influence decision-making. Most executives often must suspend their own emotional reaction to events in order to be effective. They have feelings, but the constraints of their jobs often preclude them from sharing them with others, except family members or close confidants. Of particular importance, as dictated by some business realities, is appearing cool and calm in the midst of turmoil. One can imagine Caesar calmly putting on his red robe as he contemplated the possibility of his own death. Certainly, New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani and US president George W. Bush displayed amazing calm and did so for an extended period in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks. They received credit for keeping the city, as well as the country, under control as they analyzed and dealt with the problem.
In addition to temperament and intelligence, leadership often requires experience and wisdom, especially when faced with situations never before encountered. On January 15, 2009, Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger had just taken off from New York’s LaGuardia Airport when a flock of Canada geese flew into his path, disabling the plane’s engines. With no time to spare, as his multi-ton aircraft was instantaneously turned into a falling glider over one of the most populated cities in the country, Captain Sullenberger made the decision to land on the Hudson River—declining the clearance air traffic control had given him to try to turn around, glide over the city, and land at the airport. He had never attempted this before; few commercial pilots have. In what the newspapers of the day referred to as “the Miracle on the Hudson,” he landed his aircraft and oversaw the evacuation. All 155 aboard survived. Subsequent investigation and analysis showed that he made the correct decision in those few minutes.
It is easy for someone to confuse behavior that is psychopathically motivated with expressions of genuine leadership, especially when carefully packaged as leadership. In such a case, with the phony persona so tightly bound up in business expectations, the psychopathic fiction “I am the ideal leader” works well. It often takes good results and a solid track record to differentiate between the two.
Discussion Questions
S 8.1
The Puppetmaster
In describing his role in the murder of his friend’s father and the attempted murder of his friend’s mother and sister, an offender had this to say:
“A friend of mine came in and we started talking, getting to know each other. Well, I started to get to know him better. Because the more he told me about himself, the more leverage I had. The more I know about the guy, the more I know what buttons to push. So, I started pushing those buttons. He had a lot of unresolved issues from his childhood, so I tried to get to the root of the problem and started to get him to feel very angry, very hostile toward his family. I said, they have money. Why don’t you take some? I’ll help you spend it because I’m your friend. We got together, and it escalated and I encouraged the escalation. I don’t know if in the back of my mind I truly believed what the capabilities were, but I didn’t care. So, it started to become a plan. I just keep fueling the fire; the more fuel I added to the fire the bigger the payoff for me. And, plus that sense of control, power. I was the puppetmaster pulling the strings.” The first two murder attempts failed, but the third did not. The offender watched while the quiet, introverted person he was manipulating killed the mother of the third offender with a baseball bat. They then set the house on fire.
For his actions, the offender received a sentence of twenty-five years before the possibility of parole. He married in prison and has a daughter. In the outtakes from a TV documentary provided to Hare, the offender explained his behavior in many curious ways, including blaming his father for the abuse inflicted on him. At the end of the session the interviewer asked, “So if you could go back and change things, where would you start?” The offender replied, “I have often pondered if I could go back, but then all that I have learnt would be lost . . . I don’t want to dwell on the negative aspects of it. I want to reemerge into society and make a life for myself and for my family now. Be a husband to my wife, be a father to my daughter, be a son once more to my mother. That is what I look forward to.” He now is on parole, ten years before his eligibility date.
S 8.2
Emulating the Psychopathic Style
The attitudes and behaviors of individuals with many psychopathic features are systemic, a natural and pervasive syndrome defining their general lifestyle. However, there are others whose nature is less psychopathic than pragmatic and adaptive. They adopt or feign some of the trappings of a “psychopathic lifestyle” in order to succeed, “fit in,” or excel in a profession or organization that rewards such behaviors. Some may succeed in this personal makeover by becoming sycophants, opportunistic acolytes, and free riders who model their behaviors after those of their psychopathic superiors, a process common during war, in cults, and in terrorist and criminal organizations. In other cases, special circumstances at hand, as in war, may require individuals to engage in behaviors that otherwise would be alien to them. In the fictional television series, Black Sails (Season 4, Episode 3), pirates and the Royal Navy are vying for control of early 18th-century Nassau, in the Bahamas. The Military Commander of Nassau tells the Governor, “Good men is not what the moment requires. Right now, the time calls for dark men to do dark things.”
Of course, the more psychopathic one is to start with, the easier it is to follow a road map of personal preservation and corporate predation! Many pop-psych and self-help books promote or justify a philosophy of aggressive greed, self-entitlement, and the importance of “number one.” Some pundits write about “the good psychopath” (an oxymoron?), whereas others tell us how to use our dormant psychopathic tendencies to achieve success, fame, and fortune.
This could present a problem for those (e.g., Human Resources personnel) who monitor and evaluate these faux psychopaths, and who must separate them from the real thing. For this reason, it is essential to conduct evaluations about a given individual using much more than just work-place behavior and “gut feel.”