The B-Scan: A Measure of Corporate Psychopathy
Ever wonder what leads a lavishly compensated C.E.O. to cheat, steal, and lie? Perhaps he’s a psychopath, and now there is a test, the B-Scan 360, that can help make that determination. The B-Scan was conceived by Paul Babiak, an industrial psychologist, and Robert Hare, the creator of the standard tool for diagnosing psychopathic features in prison inmates. The B-Scan is the first formalized attempt to uncover similar tendencies in captains of industry, and it speaks to a growing suspicion that psychopaths may be especially adept at scaling the corporate ladder. (M. Steinberger, New York Times Magazine, December 12, 2004)
This quote appeared in the New York Times fourth Annual Year in Ideas issue as one of the top new concepts presented during the previous twelve months.1
The PCL-R and its derivatives are rating scales scored by qualified professionals using interview and file/collateral information. Self-report measures of personality and psychopathy are popular for large-scale research projects but have limitations for assessments of individuals. In particular, they are prone to positive impression management by sophisticated and psychopathic individuals.2,3 Our intention was to construct an instrument that measured psychopathy through the subtle and often covert behaviors, judgments, and attitudes of corporate psychopaths who escape the notice of management. Part of our motivation was not only to advance the field of corporate psychopathy research, but also to offer organizations insight into the unseen, truly problematic behaviors that can lead to damage to their organizations and their employees.
Origins of the Business-Scan 360 (B-Scan 360)
Based on his early work with industrial psychopaths, Babiak described the next steps:
Following the realization that I had uncovered a psychopath working in industry, which we reported in Chapter 5, I published a scientific paper of my findings including some theoretical observations.4 Now with my antennae up and with more knowledge about psychopathy, I felt better prepared to look for additional examples that may reside in other organizations. With caution and with Bob Hare’s advice I kept my eyes open as I continued my career as an executive and organizational development consultant, which brought me in contact with hundreds of executives. I was careful to avoid the common pitfall of those new to the field, that is, to find psychopaths everywhere! As it turns out, it took over ten years to amass and analyze the data reported in Chapter 9.
Along the way I realized that many of the problematic behaviors were already known to these companies and being addressed through various management development programs and succession planning processes (for example, through management training, job rotation, and executive coaching). Thankfully, the small number of individuals available for the research possessed enough traits and characteristics (“red flags”) to warrant inclusion in the corporate psychopathy group reported above. The rest were usually untrained in management skills, or had other attitudinal or personality issues.
I wanted to continue this line of research (as yet unexplored empirically), but how could I accurately tell the difference between a corporate psychopath and a just plain “bad boss” in a user-friendly, less time-intensive way that was acceptable to organizations wishing to participate in the research? We needed a new instrument, one that was purpose-built for the business world. The result was the B-Scan (Business-Scan).
Building the B-Scan
We developed items for the B-Scan from a content analysis of corporate Succession Plans and Individual Development Plans from eight US companies. Direct supervisors (as well as some coworkers) with firsthand knowledge of the employees’ workplace behaviors, attitudes, business judgments, and developmental needs made these assessments. Often, they were in free form, allowing considerable variability in content as well as expression. We pruned the large number of items to approximately two hundred unique characteristics and then reworded each (as needed) into standard business language, while eliminating any potentially illegal verbiage (from a human resources perspective). We then presented this seed list of items to a group of psychopathy experts asked to rate how “relevant” or useful each item was to an evaluation of psychopathy or some feature of psychopathy. Separately, we had a group of operations and HR executives (who were not aware of each item’s potential regarding psychopathy) to rate the “criticality” of each item to the running of their business. We defined criticality as how much concern each trait or behavior would generate if observed in an employee, and the actions that followed. We selected items rated both as highly relevant to the assessment of psychopathy and as indicative of problematic business behaviors, to form two research versions of the B-Scan, the B-Scan Self-Report (consisting of 126 items for rating oneself) and the B-Scan 360 (consisting of 113 items to be completed by supervisors or others familiar with the person being assessed. Note: 360-degree feedback is a common technique used in management and executive development to assure that various, multiple observers “around the employee,” such as boss, subordinates, and peers, contribute to the overall, combined assessment).
An important part of the validation process (evidence that the instrument actually measures what it purports to measure) was to assess how accurately the B-Scan reflects the traditional construct of psychopathy, as measured by the PCL-R. This process involved several stages. The first step was to determine if the structure of the B-Scan parallels the Hare Four-Factor Model of Psychopathy. A series of statistical analyses reduced the item pool to twenty, and showed that the four-factor model of the B-Scan is consistent with the four-factor model of the PCL-R.5 The factor labels for the B-Scan are as follows, with the corresponding labels for the PCL-R factors in brackets:
We conducted the second test of validity in the field with employees in various public, private, non-profit, public service, and other areas. We also included community samples such as those sourced through Amazon’s MTurk online data collection service. The purpose of these studies was to a) statistically confirm the placement of the items within their theoretical facets and b) shorten the list to only those items that contribute the most information; that is, we only wanted items that captured the most relevant behaviors, attitudes, and judgments related to psychopathy.
The results led to the creation of four versions of the B-Scan: the B-Scan Self Short-Form and the B-Scan 360 Short-Form (for use by researchers), and the B-Scan Self Long-Form and the B-Scan 360 Long-Form (for potential use by human resource and business consulting professionals, perhaps as part of their selection, promotional, and executive development programs).
The third test has to do with whether corporate psychopathy, as measured by the B-Scan, accurately measures or predicts known or suspected relationships with other variables associated with psychopathy in general. Does the B-Scan offer us any insights into corporate psychopathy beyond what we can glean from other measurement methods? Our research findings suggest that it does.
The B-Scan Self
The B-Scan Self (Self-Report version) correlates strongly with a self-report scale based on the PCL-R, the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-III (SRP-III).6 Like other measures of psychopathy, the B-Scan Self is strongly associated with narcissism and Machiavellianism. As for normal personality traits, the B-Scan Self and the SRP-III are associated with low levels of Agreeableness (trusting, honest, altruistic, compliant, modest, tender-minded) and Conscientiousness (competent, orderly, dutiful, achievement-oriented, disciplined, plans ahead). In a validation study7 we found that the B-Scan and the SRP-III presented the same pattern of associations with normal personality traits, while narcissism and Machiavellianism were associated with different normal personality traits. This indicates that although the B-Scan is for use in the workplace, it still represents psychopathy, and its structure follows the same four-factor structure as the PCL-R.
What We Know So Far About Corporate Psychopathy Using the B-Scan
The list of research studies being published using the B-Scan has grown over the years since the New York Times article cited above. It is beyond the scope of this book to delve into detail about all studies that used the B-Scan. However, they, along with our work with executives in a variety of organizations over the years, have informed our revision to this book. There are several findings worth noting here. (Also, see a recent review that discusses the role of the B-Scan and the Dark Triad in the workplace.)8
Corporate Psychopathy and Gender
Most of the research on psychopathy has been with men. In the general population, the prevalence of psychopathy is significantly higher in men, meaning there are more men than women who score high enough on psychopathy measures to “qualify” as psychopathic.9,10,11 For incarcerated offenders, the same pattern seems to be present12 (see S 2.4: Gender, Ethnicity, Culture for a brief discussion of race, gender, and ethnic/cultural differences in psychopathy and its measurement).
Using the B-Scan Self and the Self-Report Psychopathy scale (SRP-III; Paulhus et al., 2016), we found that men scored significantly higher than did women on both measures.13 This indicates that gender differences for psychopathy exist in the workplace. Furthermore, in a sample of 425 employees from a public organization, we found that female supervisors scored significantly lower than did male supervisors on all four factors of the B-Scan 360 and on the B-Scan 360 total score.14
These are very interesting results, as they introduce a new angle to the study of psychopathy in women. Not only do women score lower on psychopathy than do men, but those who work for them also perceive them as less psychopathic than men. Considering the negative impact perceived psychopathic traits in managers can have in the workplace, these results give new meaning to the quote by media mogul Peter Gruber, “The best man for the job is often a woman.”
Harassment on the Job
Harassment in the workplace has received a lot of media attention after the #MeToo movement following media coverage of high-profile cases of harassment and sexual misconduct in a work context. Many efforts encourage victims to come forward. Research on the negative impacts of workplace harassment has been prolific, including, for example, lowered organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction, and higher levels of turnover intentions, anxiety, depression, and physical symptoms.15 We know less, though, about the personality traits of such individuals. In general, we know that perpetrators of workplace harassment tend to be rebellious,16 and have low levels of the personality trait called Agreeableness.17 They also exhibit attitudes toward revenge,18 have low honesty/humility,19 are concerned about “being a man,”20 and tend to hold management positions.21
As the reader can see, all of the traits identifying workplace harassment perpetrators are also traits similarly displayed by psychopathic individuals. We therefore wanted to explore whether one of the underlying factors associated with workplace harassment is psychopathy.
Mathieu and Babiak22 conducted a study in a public organization using the B-Scan 360 where employees rated the individual who perpetrated harassment against them on psychopathy as well as other personality traits. We found that psychopathy was the strongest predictor of workplace harassment (beyond the influence of the other personality traits usually considered when hiring employees). This underscores the importance of having sound psychometric instruments, such as the B-Scan 360, to assess some of the dark personality traits responsible for harassment in the workplace.
Employees Don’t Leave Their Jobs; They Leave Their (Psychopathic) Boss
In a study on the impact of leadership on employees’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention to quit their job, a team of industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists23 found that their managers’ lack of interpersonal skills affected employees more than their lack of technical skills. What this means is that, to have a positive influence on employees, leaders need to possess good interpersonal skills such as listening, empathy, and being able to encourage and motivate employees, manage conflicts, provide support, and demonstrate integrity, to name only a few. While task-oriented leaders may fall short on these interpersonal skills, there are dangerous types of leaders who not only lack interpersonal/human skills, but who also use callous manipulation and violence to get what they want and where they want to be.
Mathieu, Neumann, Babiak, and Hare24 assessed the influence of psychopathy traits in managers on employees’ work-family conflict, psychological distress, and job satisfaction. We found that employees who scored their managers higher on the B-Scan 360 (psychopathy) also reported higher levels of psychological distress and work–family conflict and lower levels of satisfaction in their job. In a subsequent study, we found that psychopathy in supervisors predicted employees’ lower levels of job satisfaction that, in turn, predicted employees’ intention to quit their job and leave their company.
In a highly competitive world, organizations cannot afford to have employees who are unsatisfied and suffering from psychological distress. Unsatisfied and unhappy employees are not productive, and unproductive employees have a direct impact on the company’s financial performance. Retention of talented employees is the key to organizational success and we now know that at least one factor influences employee retention, and that is the direct supervisor’s core personality.
Psychopathy and Leadership Style
What makes a good leader? Leadership is the most studied subject in business literature. Many leadership theories have been developed and tested over the years. I-O psychologists Avolio and Bass25 developed one of the most influential leadership models, the Full Range Model of leadership. The Full Range Model comprises three leadership styles: Laissez-Faire Leadership, Transactional Leadership, and Transformational Leadership.
Laissez-Faire Leadership refers to leaders who are absent, who avoid interactions and dealing with problems, and who are not there when their employees need them. Laissez-Faire Leadership is associated with employees’ lower levels of job satisfaction and lower satisfaction with one’s supervisor.26
Transactional Leadership is concerned with task-oriented and goal-oriented behavior, that is, leaders who reward these behaviors, monitor mistakes, and set standards. Leaders overly high on this leadership style focus on mistakes and use disciplinary threats to get employees to reach organizational goals.
Transformational Leadership is the most positive of the three leadership styles composing the Full Range Model of leadership. It has four factors: individualized consideration (giving employees personal attention); intellectual stimulation (encouraging employees to think outside the box); inspirational motivation (influencing employees through confidence and dynamic presence); and idealized influence (displaying role model behaviors through personal achievements and character). Transformational leadership style is associated with stress reduction in employees,27 increased organizational commitment,28 enhanced team performance,29 and employees’ positive psychological well-being.30
We were interested in understanding which of these leadership styles, if any, is associated with psychopathy. Mathieu and Babiak31 asked employees from two different types of companies (one was a public sector organization and the other was a large financial company) to assess their immediate supervisor on the Full Range Model of Leadership and on psychopathy (using the B-Scan 360). We found that supervisors who scored high on psychopathy scored significantly lower on both positive leadership measures (that is, Transactional and Transformational Leadership). We also found that supervisors who scored high on psychopathy scored high on Laissez-Faire Leadership. These results indicate that not only are psychopathic individuals not likely to be very effective at people management, they are not likely to be effective at task management either. In fact, once they obtain a leadership position, they are highly likely to be unreliable leaders who are not there when employees need them and who do not support their employees.
These results support what we found using the PCL-R: psychopathic leaders excel at “talking the walk.” Their charisma helps to get them hired as leaders, but they are not able to succeed as good leaders over the long haul.
Psychopathy and Abusive Leadership
Management consultant Bennett Tepper32 described abusive supervision as “the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (p. 178). It is associated with relatively low job and life satisfaction, low commitment to the organization, high work–family conflict, and overall psychological distress. The estimated cost to US-based organizations is $23.8 billion annually in productivity losses, absenteeism, and health care costs.33 During development of the B-Scan, it struck us quite clearly that the PCL-R Antisocial Factor (which includes the items for poor behavioral controls, early behavior problems, juvenile delinquency, revocation of conditional release, and criminal versatility) manifested in the B-Scan as Intimidation and Bullying.
Therefore, we were not surprised when, in a study conducted within a non-profit organization of ninety-five employees, we found that psychopathy as measured with the B-Scan 360 is strongly associated with abusive leadership, which, in turn, leads to decreases in employees’ job satisfaction and increases in their intentions to quit their job.34
Why hire these managers in the first place, and how did they manage to stay in their jobs? We have outlined in this book our answers to these questions; we believe that many bosses are good people, well trained and positively motivated; others simply are “bad bosses”; and still others are corporate psychopaths, the ones discussed in the previous chapters.
The fact that psychopathy predicts abusive leadership behavior is perhaps not a big surprise. However, these results indicate that it is possible to identify psychopathic traits using a psychometric instrument (in this case the B-Scan 360). Organizations and HR professionals should hire leaders not solely based on their task-oriented skills; they also should take into account interpersonal skills associated with positive leadership styles. Such interpersonal skills include listening to employees, empathy, ethical behavior, team-building, being able to motivate and support employees, honesty, and humility. Psychopathic individuals typically score low on such skills.
The field of study is still young, so it will take several more years of research before organizations take the situation seriously enough to implement stronger selection, placement, and promotional processes that take into account the negative aspects of people with dark personalities. The reality is that organizations do not create abusive leaders. Rather, the organizations hire and promote them.35