Stories of toxic managers, politicians and bankers abound in today’s news headlines and social media stories, but why are there seemingly so many toxic people in positions of power? One reason is that many of the traits associated with ‘dark personalities’ happen to overlap with those we look for in leadership. Ahead of her public lecture on the topic, Holly Andrews explores how one particular dark personality, psychopathy, links with success in the modern world.
Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterised by traits such as manipulativeness, lack of empathy, remorselessness, impulsivity and propensity towards antisocial behaviour. Unlike many mental health conditions, psychopaths don’t appear to be disordered – in fact, they often present as having lots of desirable characteristics! This allows them to operate successfully within society.
Researchers have been particularly interested in how psychopaths come to be successful in business. Recent estimates suggest that while 1.9% of the general population have significant levels of psychopathic traits, the proportion in organisations is 12.9%. This would indicate that psychopaths are disproportionately represented in businesses.
The overlap between the traits of psychopathy and what we look for in business leaders may be part of reason for their success. For example, we want leaders who are able to influence others, which is a less extreme version of manipulating others. Likewise, a leader might need to remove the emotion from difficult decisions; lacking empathy allows you to do this with ease. In volatile times, as we live in today, calmness under pressure also holds great appeal. Furthermore, psychopaths often make confident and articulate interview candidates, so they are easily able to enter into organisations.
Studies suggest, however, that psychopaths don’t always make great leaders. Increased incidence of bullying, reduced employee mental health and job satisfaction, increased employee turnover, risky decision making and reduced corporate social responsibility are all associated with the presence of psychopaths in organisations.
One issue with the prevailing thinking on workplace psychopaths is that it considers them as one homogeneous group. My research seeks to understand whether looking at psychopathy at a more nuanced level, as is often the case in forensic and clinical research, reveals differences in how psychopaths behave depending on their particular profile of traits. I am particularly interested in their career paths to understand how prominent people we hear about in the news come to be there.
My findings show how some of the traits of psychopathy work in opposing ways. Traits such as manipulativeness, grandiosity and superficial charm predict that people would be interested in job roles in finance but not in the arts. This may be because these traits are advantageous in finance roles but are less important in arts. It may also be due to links between traits like grandiosity and a desire for power, wealth and prestige, which are more likely to be gained in financial careers than artistic professions. However, this finding was reversed for traits including impulsivity, proneness to boredom and lack of behavioural controls. Acceptance of these more antisocial traits in artistic careers but not in financial careers may drive this relationship. This suggests that the famous workplace psychopaths who hit our headlines could be quite different from one another depending on which sector they work in.
Understanding that not all workplace psychopaths are necessarily the same, and that we might find different constellations of psychopathic traits in individuals in different kinds of organisations is important in helping us to manage them. For example, psychopaths who are manipulative and lacking in empathy might be best managed by emphasising how supporting their team can help them to advance personally. Psychopaths who lack behavioural controls may best be tackled by implementing clear guidelines on acceptable behaviour and demonstrating the consequences for violations of these.
Managing employees with psychopathic traits is important for two reasons: firstly, because of the potentially destructive impact they can have on their colleagues and the broader organisation; secondly, because we need to find ways to work with this group to help them achieve their goals of status and power without compromising the wellbeing of others.
Finding alignment between the goals of the organisation and the psychopath requires careful line management and a good understanding of the specific traits of psychopathy the person possesses. Organisations may want to harness the traits of psychopathy for their own ends, directing traits like ruthlessness towards competitors rather than internally. However, achieving this balance is only possible if managers, leaders and HR understand exactly what kind of psychopathic employee they are dealing with and provide an appropriate work environment in response. With the right approach, some psychopaths may be able to use certain traits to contribute positively to the organisation without harming fellow employees.
For better or for worse, psychopaths are present in many organisations and here to stay. Only by developing a better understanding of how psychopathy presents in the workplace can we advance our knowledge of this potentially destructive group and how best to manage them.
Holly Andrews is Associate Professor in Coaching and Behavioural Change at Henley Business School, part of the University of Reading.