CHAPTER 9:

STRICTLY BUSINESS

When you are dealing with a successful sociopath in a strictly or mostly business arrangement, it can be hard to know if the person is actually a sociopath, since not all con artists or business people who play power games are sociopaths. For example, a con artist may be scamming others to support a family he loves, or a boss may be showing off her power, because she feels she has to be aggressive to get ahead in a cut-throat office environment. She may even feel guilty when she throws someone under the bus to save her own job, but does so to survive in a super competitive environment.

Thus, it can help to look at the person’s behaviors in a broader context to see if the person has a pattern of behaving in a heartless, guilt-free way that is a sign of the sociopath, rather than this being a behavior in response to a particular situation.

One way to identify a sociopath is to learn if the person’s pattern of behavior follows the person from job to job or if multiple victims tell a similar story. Often when victims first are victimized at work, they may feel alone and powerless to do anything. But in today’s environment of the Internet and social media, you can check out review and rip-off sites to check to see if someone has been a multiple offender. These sites may provide a way to contact other victims, and you may be able to take some actions together. Also, from time to time, scam artists get caught and are featured in news stories about their arrest. Even if it may not be possible to get back any lost money or receive compensation for time spent working for a sociopath, at least it might be some consolation that the law has finally caught up with a scammer who is getting his or her just deserts.

One of the most notorious examples of predation in business is the Bernie Madoff case. Though Madoff was not identified as a sociopath by the mainstream media, his actions showed all the signs of a successful sociopath with multiple victims writ large. In fact, at the time that Madoff was exposed, a number of articles asked that very question: “Is Bernie Madoff a sociopath?” and the general consensus was that he exhibited many of the classic traits, though there was no way to make an official psychological diagnosis.

For example, in a Salon article, “Is Bernie Madoff a Sociopath?”130 Peter Finocchiaro describes how Madoff spoke to New York reporter Steve Fishman in twelve phone conversations, in which he expressed regret for his crimes, claiming it was an accident that spiraled out of control, and bothered him for years. He insisted that despite what he did, he is a good person and not a sociopath. But many of his victims considered him a sociopathic monster, and even if a sociopath expresses remorse, that might not be real; it could all be an act.

Although Finocchiaro can’t conclude for certain, even after talking to a clinical professor of psychiatry, if Madoff is a sociopath—since a psychiatrist can’t diagnose someone he hasn’t interviewed himself—Madoff shows many of the classic traits. For example, on the surface, Madoff was certainly charming, and he readily took the money of many of the victims who had once been friends, and many victims judged him as a conartist with no scruples or conscience. As one of his victims stated in a CNNMoney interview: “The man is a monster, a liar, a thief with absolutely no morals, no regrets, no shame.” 131 But someone might act that way only in their business dealings, since Finocchiaro suggests there is a spectrum in which some people may appear to have no conscience in their business dealings, but they can be caring about others within a small circle of people they care about, so they can compartmentalize, while some people have no conscience at all.132

Mona Ackerman, a clinical psychologist, came to a similar conclusion in “The Psychology Behind Bernie Madoff.”133 As she points out, Madoff did show some responsibility and guilt towards his family, so he was not completely detached from all people, as sociopaths commonly are. Thus, she concludes that Madoff did have sociopathic tendencies that were nurtured in an environment of great social and economic uncertainty after 9/11, where people were seeking a sure thing and fast money return. As Ackerman observes:

“Madoff personified certainty. He gave a lot of people, charities, and bankers the answers they needed.

“At the same time, his clients were getting what they needed. They got rewards and security…. For that, they looked away. They ignored warning signs—those remarkable earnings. But when the curtain was pulled back, there was Bernard Madoff, a sociopath—and the till was empty.”134

And while Madoff did claim remorse for the many victims who suffered major financial losses when his investment scheme collapsed, many felt any of his expression of remorse was just for show to preserve his reputation, which is exactly what a sociopath does. For example, in responding to the question: “Is Bernie Madoff a Sociopath?” on the Neurological Correlates format, a participant calling himself “Swivelchair” pointed out that Madoff’s attempts to claim he was a good person and show remorse were simply ploys to redeem his reputation after destroying those around him through their financial ruin.

Likewise, as shown in numerous news stories, he engaged, instead, in numerous actions that are characteristic of a sociopath, such as the following tactics:

1. He used a charm offense by showing he was a successful market maker.

2. He made a play for sympathy, in acknowledging that what he did was “my bad” due to his weakness for drugs, alcohol, and ego.

3. He minimized what he did, by claiming he wasn’t as bad as others in history, such as Hitler, and he blamed others in the financial industry for being worse.

4. He rationalized his actions by finding blame elsewhere, such as claiming he had to do it because his customers were greedy.

5. He sought to trivialize the victim’s’ harm, by claiming his victims were exaggerating their financial loss.135

While these strictly business encounters with sociopaths may not lead to the same intense emotional devastation that victims commonly feel after a long-term personal relationship with a sociopath, they can certainly result in emotional upheaval and extensive financial losses. They may also undermine a victim’s trust in future business dealings based on a fear this might happen again. And victims may feel a great loss of confidence and self-esteem, because of their misjudgment and economic loss.

The following stories illustrate the different ways in which sociopaths—or individuals considered to be sociopaths—can take advantage in business and work settings.

A Film Producer Who Raised Money Through a Boiler Room Operation

When I lived in L.A. for two years seeking to get into the film industry, I met a number of people who in retrospect seemed to qualify as sociopaths, besides my experience with the woman film producer who worked on my film and tried to steal it, that I described earlier. Like her they all had that strong drive to get ahead, and presented themselves as something they were not, such as calling themselves producers and directors, when they had never yet produced or directed anything.

In certain industries, such as the film industry, finance industry, politics, and any position involving sales, the emphasis on attaining material wealth, power, and success seems to have a special appeal for sociopaths. By contrast, the sociopaths might be less likely to be in other fields which attract individuals who are caring and concerned about others, such as the health professions and human resources. The film industry seems particularly prone to this attraction, since the field is bottom-line oriented, with an emphasis on big box office success, and people use the image of success as a kind of calling card to help open doors for them. Moreover, the stars in the field are actors, who make a living through pretending to be something they are not.

It is in this context that I met another film producer I’ll call Victor after a mailing to producers about some of my film projects through my business connecting writers to publishers, agents, and the film industry. I later introduced him to a hopeful writer and cinematographer, Eric, who became one of his true victims, after he spent several weeks reviewing scripts for Victor and never getting paid. And there were hundreds of other victims who invested in his company based on misrepresentations and lost their money, before Victor ended up in jail. He, along with seventeen others, was charged with running a boiler room sales operation which raised about $25 million for a film, but they only put about $5 million into the film, didn’t release other films, and put most of the money into travel and expensive homes and cars.

One of the warning signs that I didn’t recognize at the time was Victor’s exaggerated claims to have high power connections in Hollywood, such as a brother-in-law who was a well-known film producer, although he had been divorced from his former brother-in-law’s sister for several years, so he really no longer had a good connection. Victor also spoke grandly about many of the films his company was producing and how he would like to produce one of mine, once his foreign funding came through to keep me involved, though the funds never did arrive, and he and his associates spent most of the funds from investors on living a lavish lifestyle.

But since I wasn’t aware of all this at the time and I was drawn in by Victor’s confident talk about film opportunities, I introduced Eric to him, since Eric lived in L.A. and was eager to get into the film business as a writer and cinematographer. So far, he had worked on a number of low-paid jobs on indie film crews as the second camera, and he worked for a volunteer organization providing low-cost script coverage to new screenwriters. When Victor offered him an opportunity reviewing and critiquing scripts for pay, Eric jumped at the opportunity, and he reviewed several hundred scripts for Victor. But Victor never paid Eric anything. Instead, he kept assuring Eric that he would be paid once the foreign funding from China came through. But after three years of being led on by Victor’s promises of great opportunities, Eric racked up a bill of nearly $60,000 from reviewing scripts, writing reports, making recommendations, and rewriting some scripts, on which he was promised film credits.

Because of these promises of future rewards, Eric ignored many of the warning signs, such as the cavalier manner in which Victor treated him. For example, several times Eric made appointments to meet Victor at his office, but when Eric arrived, after an hour of freeway driving, Victor wasn’t there, and Victor never called or emailed him to say he would be away, even later, after Eric called back several times, Victor finally answered and gave him a perfunctory apology, showing he had little concern about Eric’s difficulties. Yet, since Victor kept promising to produce several films on which Eric could participate, Eric pushed aside any concerns about missed meetings and insincere apologies to continue reviewing film scripts for Victor. And despite the continually delayed payments, Eric kept working for Victor, believing Victor’s claim that the company would provide a big opportunity once the Chinese funding arrived.

But what Eric didn’t know is that the company facade was all show, and there was no foreign investment coming from China or anywhere else. Instead, the claim of big investors was just part of the facade which Victor presented to everyone, just like he bragged about having big studio connections through his brother-in-law, when any such connection had died when he got divorced.

Finally, in mid-2011, reality hit in the form of a federal investigation into a telemarketing boiler room operation that raised over $25 million for two films from over 500 victim-investors, but only produced one for $5 million and used the extra funds for beautiful homes, cars, and foreign travel. Eventually, according to Eric who followed the case, Victor pled guilty as did most of the others, and he was sentenced to four years in prison. So that ended Eric’s hopes of collecting the $60,000 payment due for his work or his potentially working on future film projects for Victor. At the same time, the conviction ended Victor’s false front as a big-time Hollywood producer.

In this case, Eric should have never followed along so complacently for over three years. Rather than being strung along with a promise to pay once a claimed investment arrived, Eric should have stopped early on, say once his billing was about $2,000 to $3,000, and he should have asked for pay to do any more. Plus, Eric could have done some online research to verify some victims’ claims by entering a few key words, and if there were any gaps or discrepancies, he could have dropped out early on, before spending so much time without getting paid.

Likewise, you should be cautious when you face repeated delays and excuses about payments, and you hear that the person has certain high-level connections. If so, you can check out these claims online, and if you discover a pattern of lies, it’s time to cut your losses as best you can and move on.

A Publisher on a Rampage Against Any Critiques

Another case of a likely sociopath in business is a small independent publisher who goes on an anger-fueled rampage to destroy anyone who dares to criticize his press.

In this case, one writer, David, sent a proposed project to the editor of this company I’ll call the ABC Press, about a book on exposing scams, and publisher, expressed interest and offer a $10,000 advance. But then the publisher “Tom Thompson,” wanted to change the book’s focus from interviewing several dozen people who experienced different types of scams to writing about a particular scam in which writers, librarians, and others joined together to ruin the reputation of a publishing company, using his own company as an example. Though David wasn’t sure he wanted to change the focus of the book or that the effort to expose a publisher who wronged them was a scam, the $10,000 advance seemed tempting. Plus, David had no offers from other publishers, so he felt like this might be his only opportunity for publication.

Yet, even if he currently had no other offers, David should have said no from the get go, because maybe the group claiming the publisher had wronged them could be right. He should have given more weight and credence to his own suspicions. But David was swayed by Thompson’s seemingly mild-mannered appearance and offer to pay half of the $10,000 up front. So he agreed to Thompson’s offer, making him vulnerable to being conned himself.

Then, as if the con was now being launched, things got weird. First, the publisher wanted to fly out to meet with David at his home in Portland to discuss what to say in the book, which was unusual, since normally publishers do not meet with authors, much less fly across the country to meet them. Normally, they do almost everything via phone calls, letters, and emails, and commonly assistants or editors handle these tasks, in fact. Also, it was unusual that the publisher said he would bring half the advance, a check for $5,000, to their meeting.

Complicating the arrangements further, Thompson asked David to edit a book from another writer, and David proposed to do so at his usual hourly rate, with a cap of only $800 for the full manuscript, since Thompson said he just wanted to fix the obvious mistakes like misspellings and bad grammar, so the writer wouldn’t be embarrassed by such errors. But after getting the manuscript, David discovered so many errors that he felt more extensive rewriting was necessary, and he couldn’t properly revise the full manuscript on the publisher’s budget. Or did the publisher really only want a cursory edit, which would result in an unprofessional manuscript?

To make sure, David sent what he revised in a half-hour, and since the publisher was out of town, his executive editor gave him the go-ahead to do more. So David sent in another hour of edits the following day, to which the editor gave another go ahead, and after another hour of editing, he sent a $300 bill for his hours thus far. But after Thompson returned from his trip, everything turned even weirder. A few days later, the editor wrote to him saying that the publisher’s experience with David in handling the editing job made him unwilling to continue any relationship. So he wouldn’t come to Portland and was withdrawing his offer to publish David’s manuscript. And when David asked about his payment for editing after he got three requests from the editor to do more, the editor sent a letter saying that Thompson had decided not to pay him since he didn’t finish the book. When David tried to contact Thompson to discuss things, Thompson wouldn’t return his phone calls or emails.

But even more chilling was a letter he received a few days after his last email. In the letter, Thompson now blamed him for all kinds of unspecified losses in response to his billing for $300 payment. It was like the kind of “blame the victim” response given by a sociopath should a victim dare to question anything the sociopath is doing. As the letter threatened:

“When a plumber undertakes to repair your bathroom for an agreed amount, and after spending two hours on the job, then tells you that it is going to cost far more than agreed, you do not pay the plumber, you sue him for fraud.

“Your professional misbehavior has caused us and our author economic loss because you failed to complete the job you agreed to do for a specific amount of money that was agreed. We suggest you write the matter off or we will sue you for the enormous damages you have done to us.”

David was stunned. What enormous damages could Thompson possibly be talking about, since David spent only 2½ hours editing a manuscript which needed a more comprehensive edit than he originally expected? Thompson could easily find someone else to do the job; there was no damage to the manuscript or anything else; and editing is not like a plumbing job where a plumber might break pipes or cause water damage due to errors on the job. And the threat to sue him for enormous but unspecified damages over a $300 bill seemed absurd, like bringing out a cannon to swat down a fly.

Under the circumstances, David did exactly the right thing. He dropped any further pursuit of his money or any further contact with the publisher, much as one should do when confronted by an irrational driver in a road rage incident. It’s a no-win situation with a person determined to win. Though the letter could be an idle threat to keep David from pursuing the matter, it could also be the beginning of an unpleasant escalation from someone out of revenge and ready and willing to attack, especially when David discovered that Thompson had a history of suing writers, librarians, libraries, and universities for millions in response to expressions of opinion and decisions not to buy his books.

David discovered the publisher’s litigation history when he decided to check out the publisher after getting that strange, vindictive letter. That’s when he discovered that the publisher had a reputation as a vanity publisher posing as a traditional publisher, so its catalog included a few books it published alongside most of its books which were paid for by the writers. But worse, the media reported that the ABC Press used a false defamation lawsuit to silence a critic who characterized Thompson’s books as being of poor quality and not worth the high cost. In the lawsuit, ABC asked for $4 million in damages, and sued not only the writer who had posted the comments, but the school he worked for, and at one time, the suit included a librarian and library.

The suit was an example of legal bullying, and the company made further threats against a blogger who posted two blogs about the company’s previous legal actions. In response, many individuals and writers’ organizations had come to the support of the writer who was sued on the grounds that freedom of speech includes the freedom to criticize and this publishing company should not use the courts to silence and intimidate its critics. Ironically, as David realized, the book that Thompson wanted him to write by adapting his book on scams was a book to attack any writers and organizations that supported the writer he sued by claiming they were scam artists who wanted to extort money from him. So Thompson wanted David to write the book to discredit these individuals and organizations, get them to stop supporting the writer and organizations he sued, or even set the stage for a suit against them, too.

With some more digging online, David discovered even more negative information about Mr. Thompson, which included getting into a power struggle with his students when he was a professor at a small college because he thought they were moving their desks too slowly into a circle. So he not only began yelling angrily at the students, but fired his teaching assistant for urging him to calm down. Eventually, the incident led to the college dean offering Thompson early retirement, but instead he negotiated a medical leave to go to a special rehabilitation program, claiming a heart condition and depression. After two weeks, he left the program, claiming his doctor ordered a relaxing vacation to help him recover, but instead he went on a world tour for several months, and when the college learned about his trip and sought to terminate him from the school, he refused to resign since he was a tenured professor, which led to a two-week public trial, which the college finally won, though it cost nearly $500,000. It won by showing Thompson was terminated for gross academic misconduct, abusing his medical leave, and taking time from his academic duties to spend time working on his press that had become a business earning millions each year.

For David, these discoveries helped him feel relieved the publisher had turned him down, and he felt better about ending a relationship with a publisher with questionable business practices. The $300 he lost was a small price to pay for this result. And soon afterwards, he found a traditional publisher that offered a small advance and he got his book published.

So in the end, David did exactly the right thing in ending the relationship, and his research helped him better understand what happened and feel better about the end result. He realized the publisher was very likely a sociopath—or at least had the major behaviors of one, and he was glad to have escaped being drawn into what seemed like a questionable, self-serving book to write. At the time it happened, David thought of the contract collapse and non-payment as the result of a business deal gone south. He didn’t realize that he was dealing with a publisher who showed all the signs of being a sociopath, starting with wooing him with a very promising contract and manipulating him to change his book to get back at the writers and organizations who supported the other writers and institutions he sued for millions for having a negative opinion about him and his company. Plus Thompson immediately cut David as soon as he pointed out problems with the book, blamed David for fraud when he pointed out that the manuscript had more problems than expected, and threatened to sue David for far more than the small $300 amount he was asking for payment. At least when David decided not to pursue his $300 claim, he didn’t have to worry about becoming another victim of Thompson’s anger and lawsuits. He could move on without being further caught in a trap.

A Marketing Promoter Who Promised a Lot and Ripped People Off

Sociopaths can also conceal their true character in the business world behind a facade of strong family relationships, whether they have actual feelings for family members or not, because of the ability many of them have to compartmentalize. So they might behave as a sociopath in the business world, where they act without a conscience and lie repeatedly to manipulate victims, but they may be totally different with their family, when business isn’t involved. Classically, psychiatrists and psychologists have considered sociopaths to have the characteristic personality traits and behaviors in all aspects of their life, but this appears to not to be the case. For example, in the Madoff case, some psychologists felt he had the ability to compartmentalize, so he could without conscience rip off billions from victims in pursuing his international Ponzi scheme, while feeling some responsibility and concern for the effect of his actions on his family.

That’s what Emily, a media consultant, found when Shirley, a workshop organizer and events planner, hired her and made expansive promises. When they first met, Emily had been doing PR for one of one of Shirley’s sisters, Beth, who was promoting her new boutique, and Emily came to the ribbon cutting ceremony. At once Shirley praised Emily for her great work for Beth, indicated she owned several businesses, and could use Emily’s help in developing some books on financial planning for her. In fact, Shirley told Emily she would have plenty of work for her, because she had so many clients who needed help with PR, and she expected many more.

So initially, all seemed fine. Emily was impressed with Shirley’s style and air of self-assurance, and Shirley’s connections with a dozen family members at the store opening made her seem even more warm-hearted and credible. Thus, Emily overlooked what might have been the first warning sign that Shirley wasn’t completely on the up-and-up: Shirley wanted her to rewrite an already written manual on “Planning Your Financial Future” that she used in her workshops, because it was written by someone else. But now Shirley wanted to do these workshops on her own and needed her own book to sell there. However, she couldn’t just take his book and put her name on it, which would infringe on his copyright.

So as Shirley told Emily:

“I want you to update it by changing the wording enough, so there’s no plagiarism. As long as you can rewrite it so the copy is different, I can make it my own.”

At this point, Emily should have said no, since the enterprise was dubious. But she agreed, despite her initial concerns about the legality and ethics of the project, given Shirley’s appearance as a very successful and self-assured workshop leader. Although Emily usually worked on a retainer or pay-as-you-go credit card arrangement, she agreed when Shirley asked her to take a check as a down payment and assured her that she could pay the rest that weekend at a big “Start Up the Right Way” conference she was sponsoring with another entrepreneur. She even invited Emily to be one of the presenters to talk about her business, and maybe she could get some clients from the conference. Thus, Emily spent the next three days rushing to finish as much of Shirley’s 150 page book as she could, and was able to do half. She emailed Shirley a copy a day before the conference, and brought some additional edited pages when she arrived to speak to the group.

But as it turned out, the conference was a total bust. Instead of a promised turnout of 100 participants, only thirty-five attended, and Emily wasn’t able to speak. She was only given time to make a one-minute announcement at the end of conference to about twenty people who were still there. Worse, Shirley said she couldn’t pay the balance because she and her partner lost money on the conference and still had hotel bills to pay. Then, she put all the blame on her partner for going ahead with the conference, even though the prepaid attendance was much lower than expected. So now, despite the ritzy surroundings of an A-list hotel, Shirley pled poverty and hoped Emily would understand why she couldn’t pay her all she owed her. Plus, she told Emily that she would be getting outstanding checks soon and that she expected a half a dozen new projects to come through.

Lulled by Shirley’s reassurances and trying to be understanding and sympathetic, Emily agreed. But three days later Shirley’s check bounced, though she blamed a bank snafu and promised to get everything straightened out the next day. However, Shirley now came up with a series of other excuses of why she couldn’t pay, though she made two small payments of $100 and $50 a month apart, as if to placate Emily with some token payments.

But, over the next six weeks, the mixture of promises of great opportunities combined with excuses for not paying continued. For example, Shirley said she was flying to L.A. to work out some deals with her PR associate and they were having a free seminar to attract clients for several thousand dollar packages, but that event only sold one package, so there was no money to pay Emily. And Shirley reported that several other deals for PR clients fell through. What especially disturbed Emily, though, was that Shirley was continuing to give her reasons why she couldn’t pay.

Certainly, many business problems might occur for anyone in business, not just a sociopath. Companies run into cash flow and payment problems all the time. But what should have made Emily become suspicious early on was the use of promises and lies to avoid paying her, as well as Shirley’s attempt to shift blame to Emily when she claimed that the project was only half finished, so she couldn’t sell it to make money from this to pay Emily, although Emily had divided the book into two halves that could be sold separately. She also lied by claiming she had offered Emily an ad in a magazine she published, though she had not made such an offer and the magazine was not published, nor was she the publisher. Plus she spoke about her need to pay the rent for a part-time office in an elegant building, so she looked like she owned a very successful company. Yet, while she could pay that, she couldn’t find enough to pay Shirley even though she asked her to continue working on the book while floating tantalizing promises of work to come.

Probably in this situation, Emily’s best response was to pull out of the project and cut her losses, since the amount in question was not enough to take Shirley to court. Yet ever hopeful, Emily remained ready to continue working on the book, though she pursued the best strategy of waiting to get more money before doing anything more.

Finally, matters came to a head because the excuse that bothered Emily the most was Shirley’s statement that she would be going out of town for ten days on a cruise with her family, so she couldn’t pay anything more until she got back. In Emily’s view, she had tried to be understanding and patient; but now it seemed like Shirley was going to keep giving her new excuses to delay paying her anything, and after Emily sent Shirley a notice saying she would start adding 10 percent interest to the unpaid balance, Shirley now claimed she didn’t owe the full amount based on Emily’s hourly rate, since Emily had only completed half of the book—a claim she had never made before.

As a result, Emily was furious. She felt like she was being played, with non-payment combined with future promises and reasons for not paying in the present. Why couldn’t Shirley pay if she could afford vacation travel and a luxury office suite? Shirley’s promises and excuses for repeated payment delays didn’t make sense, although in hindsight, her actions reflect the behavior pattern of a sociopath, such as her attempt to blame Emily, the continued effort to manipulate Emily to continue to work on the book with false promises, and the effort to maintain a false front to impress others.

But feeling anything she did was a losing battle, eventually, Emily decided to make the best agreement under the circumstances. She said she would accept Shirley’s claim that she owed half if Shirley would pay her now and agree to not expect any more work from her in the future, and Shirley did pay that. Afterwards, disillusioned by what happened and feeling like she had been played, Emily began to check online into Shirley’s claims about her many successful businesses, and she soon discovered she was far from the only one who had been taken in by Shirley’s promises and lies. For example, she found a series of scathing reports on Yelp that described Emily’s financial business, which I’ll call The Finance Wizard. Among them were these:

“TFW does not do what it promises. They took fees from my clients, but no service was provided.”

“I understand that Shirley might have ended her business as TFW and that is a good thing. She took thousands of dollars from me and did not provide me with usable financial advice and led me into bad investments. In fact, she lied multiple times and never contacted any businesses on my behalf to help me raise money. Stay away from her and any business connected with her name. She will rip you off.”

“Well at last the BBB has scored Shirley Armstrong and her bogus company a F!…If anyone comes across this review and has been screwed over by Shirley, let’s get together and turn this thief in.”

After reading such statements, Emily realized she was not alone, and that Shirley had been manipulating her with promises, lies, and excuses, using the lure of claimed big opportunities that never came through as a way to get her to do what she wanted in revising the book. But then she sought ways to get out of paying, including a promise to pay sometime in the future, accompanied by a reason why she couldn’t pay now. Though Emily didn’t realize Shirley was engaging in a common pattern of sociopathic behavior in business, that’s what Shirley was doing—and since she had been blasted for such behavior with others, this was evidence that her actions with Emily was no mere fluke. She had a pattern of victimizing many others, avoiding a penalty for her actions, and moving on to the next, after she no longer needed the money or involvement of the person she left behind. At least, Emily was able to work out a compromise to get paid half of what was due by finally confronting Shirley and ending the relationship.

Working for a Boss Who Acts Like a Sociopath

Besides being a victim of a sociopath who takes advantage of customers, clients, and service providers, another common situation is working for a boss who treats an employee with little care or concern and may revel in power games, whereby the boss enjoys manipulating an employee. However, a boss may not have to use the charm that often is the first stage of luring in the victim, unless the boss is doing the hiring and presents the company as a great place to work. In many cases, though, such a charm appeal is not necessary, because the prospective employee is eager for the job or has been hired by a company owner or HR manager, who assigns that employee to the boss. So often the employee victim is already on the job when the manipulation and abuse starts.

Still, the boss may use this charm offensive in other ways, such as on higher-ups and other managers and supervisors, who continue to regard the boss highly, even as he or she is mistreating the employees he or she manages. As long as the results are good, as long as the workers are productive, that is commonly what counts to the higher-ups. Thus, as long as the employees are doing their job, a sociopathic boss can get away with his or her behavior. Sometimes this behavior can so terrorize the employees and undermine their confidence that they remain on the job, afraid to leave given the difficulties of finding another job or getting a good recommendation, if they stand up to a boss who has the power.

The following stories illustrate examples of bosses behaving badly, drawn from interviews I conducted with several dozen employees and employers for the book: A Survival Guide for Working with Bad Bosses.136 At the time, I never thought to consider the bosses as sociopaths; I and the interviewees simply called them bad bosses, primarily because they exercised their power over their employees in an abusive, exploitive way, and sometimes they seemed to play power games to show how far they could go in controlling their employees to do what they wanted. While these are characteristic behaviors of a sociopath, the term was generally not used to describe behavior of people who were successful in the workplace.

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

In some cases, a boss who does the hiring can entice a prospective employee into what becomes a terrible, soul-crunching environment, much like a wolf can entice a sheep into his lair. That’s what Shauna experienced when she began her first year of teaching in an elementary school on a small Indian reservation on the prairies. The principal, Dr. Ryan, used his charm, as successful sociopaths do, to lure Shauna into accepting the job. When she experienced his day-to-day actions, which included humiliating the students and using school resources for his personal benefit, such as driving the school van instead of his car for personal use, she felt she could do little. She had already been caught in his trap and had to work there for at least a year. Initially, she had been drawn to the school though the salary was lower than the nearby public school jobs, because she was inspired by the charm of the principal, Dr. Ryan, when she met him at a school jobs fair and he explained his philosophy of helping to educate the underprivileged. She felt a few years of teaching in this challenging environment would also help her find a good teaching job in the local public school system.

But soon, Shauna, like many other teachers, began to feel that Dr. Ryan’s words were all a sham, such as when he told the fourth grade students they would probably end up in jail or as drunken bums in the gutter, and told other elementary school students that they would “amount to nothing better than ‘rez dogs.’” While Dr. Ryan had a great charm when he talked to the public, he didn’t follow through in getting funds or community support for school programs, and he didn’t attend the cultural events held at the school, such as round dances and feasts.

Worse, some of his actions bordered on criminal, such as using school property and funds for personal use, and using the school van instead of his car to drive a sixty mile round trip commute from his home to work each day. He routinely delegated numerous administrative tasks to first-year teachers and took many days off during the entire year, including spending a day on the golf course on the students’ last day of school.

Dr. Ryan also regularly bullied and harassed the teachers and was especially abusive to one young teacher he asked out, though he was living with another woman. After she refused him, he frequently yelled at her and reduced her to tears. Additionally, Dr. Ryan pried into the teachers’ private lives and asked them personal questions about their families, children, and romantic lives. He spoke about other staff members negatively behind their backs, and used the teacher evaluations like a club to insure conformity with his orders and discourage teachers from resisting or complaining, telling them such actions would negatively affect their evaluation.

When Shauna sought to discuss some of her concerns, she faced repeated retaliation from Dr. Ryan for the remainder of the school year. For example, he falsely reported her poor performance to other teachers and to the principals of other districts, where she was applying for a job for the next year, although she had previously received a glowing evaluation. This was his way of getting revenge, since Shauna had dared to resist him.137

In short, Dr. Ryan was a “nightmare boss,” who had all the trappings of being a sociopath, from being charming when he wanted to be, to treating the teachers like his personal chattel, who he variously humiliated, insulted, and blamed as a matter of course. Plus he took advantage of the system to do what he wanted, such as using a van like a personal car and taking an extra day to play golf, which delayed the start of the school year. Given the power differential, there was little that Shauna could do that first year except grin and bear it, since any resistance or even an attempt to discuss the problem would lead to retaliation again her, just as Dr. Ryan retaliated against any teacher who resisted him in any way. At least the young teacher who had refused his advances found a job in another county the following year, so she could escape his clutches—usually the best way of dealing with a sociopathic boss who has power over you.

So what should Shauna have done? Unfortunately, given the power differential, she wasn’t in a good position to do anything overtly, and being a whistleblower to a higher administrator might have quickly ended her career, although she could look for any opportunity to join any kind of investigation initiated by someone else. Then, too, Shauna might have talked to the other teachers, after she saw them humiliated or taken advantage of in some way. Maybe if enough teachers joined together, they could collectively complain to Dr. Ryan’s superiors, and then maybe could be taken seriously.

If you are in a lower power position with a sociopathic boss, probably the best options are to leave if you can, wait it out for the opportunity to do something where you don’t damage your own career prospects, or see if you can join forces with enough others in a similar position to effect change.

In another case, Julie had a sociopathic boss who actually engaged in criminal activities. He first invented a cover story about being the boss of a network of travel agencies with private jets and claimed he had come from the East Coast, where this travel empire was based, to start a new branch in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is where Julie met him. Then, he used his charm to create a company with a dozen travel escorts recruited from a San Francisco Chronicle ad to lead trips, and he engaged the help of a local singles magazine publisher to help him promote his trips to singles. Even large restaurants and galleries jumped on board his seemingly successful travel juggernaut which had increasingly large singles parties in trendy restaurants and clubs, until after he wrote a half-dozen bad checks the night of a gala singles party that was designed to shore up his whole fantasy empire and the whole edifice crashed down. But when not enough people turned up, so that he didn’t have enough money to cover the bad checks, he skipped town. Later, he was captured and arrested in San Diego, when a police officer stopped him for making an illegal left turn and discovered warrants out for his arrest.

Although no one called him a sociopath at the time, his actions were those of a sociopath who built his alcohol-fueled fantasies of great wealth and success into a story that sucked in multiple victims, many of whom lost money or contributed hundreds hours of unpaid work into a sociopathic dream that turned into a nightmare.

Here’s how I described his rise and fall, adapted from my account in A Survival Guide for Working with Bad Bosses:

It all began after the travel company head, Rex, put an ad in the San Francisco Chronicle for tour escorts … Soon, Rex had a dozen or so escorts on tap for the tours, a new vice president of travel sales, and a blonde, twenty-something secretary who looked like a model. He set up a trendy-looking corporate office suite with a half dozen rooms, including a board room with a long table for meetings.

But the meetings were mostly devoted to dreamy discussions about the great trips that the company hoped to set up. But after several months, none of the customers had actually gone on one of these trips.

Meanwhile, Rex used his charm to persuade vendors to give him credit, promising to pay as soon as expected funds from headquarters came through. But despite tantalizing flyers for glamorous trips to exotic locations, not enough people signed up for any of the trips to take place, though Rex kept taking in deposits and telling clients they would be on the next trip.

Soon there were increasing signs of money problems, and Rex moved the company account from bank to bank. Though he had trouble making the payroll each week, he acted like nothing was wrong, relying on his usual debonair charm that was so persuasive with everyone.

Yet, despite these signs of financial difficulties, the promotional parties continued with local business executives and young singles, and Rex played the genial host. Part of the problem is that he preferred the aura of local celebrity to the day-to-day responsibilities of running a business. Meanwhile, people continued to be captivated by Rex, and no one working for the company seemed to want to acknowledge there could be a problem and risk upsetting the fun rounds of parties and aura of glamour that Rex exuded.138

Unfortunately, as Rex’s story illustrates, individuals who encounter a likely sociopath in a position of power can be so swayed by the person’s charm or the glamour of his position and schemes that they are unaware there could be a problem. Or they don’t have the power to do anything, since their boss or leader is in charge, so they go along to get along. If anyone speaks up, they are likely to get fired, so the only real options are to talk individually with co-workers in a similar situation to possibly take some actions as a group, or quit.

The ax finally fell at a gala singles event Rex organized, expecting that the cover charges would pay for the cost of the party and then enough people would sign up for the trips so he could cover other expenses and debts for the past three months. Unfortunately, the event was poorly attended and the receipts came nowhere near meeting the outstanding bills to pay for it. As a result, the next day Rex fled his small apartment, leaving in his wake several bounced checks to the hotel, musicians, and caterer, whom he had charmed into accepting a check for payment in full the night of the party, rather than getting the usual deposit.

Then, after Rex was stopped in Southern California for making an illegal left turn, his long past as a poseur came to light. When the police did a warrants check, they discovered he was wanted up north, and they found a stolen credit card machine in his car; presumably so he could finance a new start in Southern California. He was charged with grand theft for more than $14,000 in bounced checks that final night, though there was about $50,000 in other outstanding payments to employees and other creditors, since we all had been dupes suckered in by Rex’s charm.139

However, there was never any mention of sociopathy at the time; everyone simply thought of Rex as a con man who had cheated them, when, in fact, Rex had taken all of us for a kind of sociopathic ride. With the characteristic charm of a sociopath, he beguiled everyone with his stories of running a huge travel empire, and perhaps Rex came to believe much of the story himself, due to the drugs and alcohol from the frequent parties he put on or attended to pursue his dreams of success in singles travel. So dozens of people eagerly signed up to participate as travel hosts and contributors, but nobody checked out the reality of his story or wondered why this seemingly successful travel company CEO was living with almost no furniture and a sleeping bag in a one-room apart in a seedy part of the city. Everyone simply accepted him for what he claimed to be, based on his false mask.

Then, conscience-free, he convinced a number of unwitting banks and vendors to help him continue his scheme, until it ultimately collapsed, as schemes based on falsehoods often do. His gala party was supposed to be his crowning success, even though not one person who paid had actually gone on a trip. But until that fateful night, his continuing and expanding web of lies had helped him to keep his massive fraud going until its collapse.

Obviously, what all the people who became victims of his fraud—from the employees to the vendors—should have done is check out his story. Everyone, including me, should have asked more questions and asked for more details about his past trips when he was back East. We all should have become suspicious more quickly, when there were payment delays, and the employees might have been more suspicious seeing signs of problems, such as Rex’s frequent hangovers, and repeated meetings with bankers to open new accounts as the company’s financial affairs grew more desperate.

By the same token, if you begin to see signs of a cover-up in a business, do more checking on the principals, and if the business is not what it seems, don’t let the outward glamor dissuade you from the reality that lies beneath. At some point, it may all fall apart, and you don’t want to be caught in the fall. Instead, walk away. Perhaps find another job or take a vacation if you can afford one to give yourself some distance from what happened. And perhaps even tell the local police if you suspect fraud.

130 Peter Finocchiaro, “Is Bernie Madoff a Sociopath?” Salon, http://www.salon.com/2011/03/02/is_bernie_madoff_a_socipath.

131 Aaron Smith, “Madoff Mess: Madoff Victims Fire Back: ‘The Man is a Monster,’” CNNMoney, http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/28/news/companies/madoff_victims

132 Ibid.

133 Mona Ackerman, “The Psychology Behind Bernie Madoff,” Huffington Post, 1/18/209, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mona-ackerman/the-psychology-behind-ber_b_151966.html

134 Ibid.

135 Swivelchair, ibid.

136 Gini Graham Scott, A Survival Guide for Working with Bad Bosses, New York: AMACOM, 2006.

137 Scott, pp. 84-86.

138 Ibid., pp. 161-162.

139 Scott, p. 162.