Are YOU a psychopath?
Some CEOs and top executives may certainly come across that way, with a detachment from the human element of their businesses and a coldness that would make an Alaskan winter look like a nice spring day. These are often the highly successful, charming types, who are adept at closing deals, invariably in their favour, the ones who will befriend you until you have fulfilled your purpose to them and then mercilessly cast you aside. There are even some hysterically-reported statistics thrown around in the media, “ONE IN FIVE CEOs ARE PSYCHOPATHS!” so in this article, I examine the truth behind that wild claim and ask the question: how much do you relate to?
Psychopathy and sociopathy are not disorders in themselves, they are behavioural subtypes related to Antisocial Personality Disorder, a Cluster B personality disorder as defined by the DSM-5, the global authority on mental health disorders. ASPD sits alongside borderline, narcissistic and histrionic disorders, and could be said to be the most dangerous of them all due to the complete disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others. Characterised by features like a total lack of empathy, a Machiavellian need to manipulate and deceive, aggression and lack of remorse, it often emerges before the age of fifteen in the form of conduct disorder, cruelty to animals and the like. Perceptually, psychopathy is an intrinsic form, originating within the individual, whereas sociopathy is extrinsic and the result of trauma or environmental factors. Either way, the resulting ASPD can result in a trail of destruction behind the individual, toxic working environments, shattered relationships, broken trust and a culture of bullying and silenced victims.
So, where does that one in five statistic originate? A 2010 study by Babiak, Neumann and Hare looked at 203 corporate professionals, namely middle and senior management, and examined the traits these managers exhibited against the classical ASPD behaviours. The Western corporate world prizes traits such as fearlessness, bold decision-making and risk-taking – all of which are linked to psychopathy. A true psychopath will be adept at masking their callousness with charm that could persuade birds out of trees, all the while scheming and manipulating others by any means necessary. This manner of leadership can drive incredibly high profits, and as one climbs higher and higher in the corporate ladder, accountability diminishes until there is nobody who can call time on the leader’s behaviour. Babiak et al’s study found that around 21% of leaders they studied exhibited elevated psychopathy traits, and of course the press loved it.
Yet that study has its faults. The sample population was small when compared to other studies such as Furnham, Hyde and Trickey (2013), published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, who surveyed 1000 UK managers and reported prevalence of psychopathic traits in only 3.5% of subjects. For comparison, the general population baseline of true psychopaths suggested by Hare (varied studies) is 1% – and the 3.5% population is a significant variation from the 21% originally publicised. The increase in the corporate arena is likely to result from selection bias, where candidates displaying that fearless, bold approach are favoured over quieter, unassuming individuals, and who are “in your face” enough to be screaming for promotion once in situ. From a recruitment perspective, overlooking that shy candidate who is reluctant to glorify their own achievements could be a costly mistake in workplace cohesion terms – they will be much less likely to cause ripples of discord in your team than the glittering diamond displaying the go-getting attitude that caught your attention.
So, the nuts and bolts of the Babiak et al study? That 21% figure is misrepresented through using non-clinical factors in dimensions such as leadership, teamwork and performance. In terms of strict clinical significance, the overall prevalence of 3.5% of psychopaths in the workplace is not that much higher than in the general population. Still, it is important to bear in mind that the effects of toxic leadership undermine the net profitability of an organisation, in that staff turnover and an acquired reputation as being a hell hole to work for will ultimately prevent top talent acquisition and lead to disadvantage in the market. Leaders, look after your staff, and they will look after you. And if you think you are displaying psychopathic tendencies from reading this article? Chances are you’ll already know about them and wouldn’t trade them for the world.
Kate Stapleton
https://linktr.ee/katestapletonfusion
Review