Asked and answered...The Jekyll-and-Hydeing place for the psychopath in a suit
February 21 2003
By Leon Gettler
One of the problems in identifying the corporate psychopath is that it's a
world in which some of the defining characteristics are commonplace.
Is the boss a psychopath?
Not a murderer, a vicious criminal or rapacious scam-meister. But we know
the type. Oozing charm and charisma but with no emotional depth; more
sizzle than steak. These are the ones who are manipulative and ruthless
enough to do whatever it takes and stick the knife into anyone standing in
their way. With their finely honed political skills, sharp timing and
chameleon-like abilities, they thrive on risk, chaos and upheaval. And they
are cold-blooded enough to claim later that they did nothing wrong.
Research done by Dr Robert Hare, emeritus professor of psychology at the
University of British Columbia and a New York-based colleague Dr Paul
Babiak indicates the psychopath usually seduces and takes over in five stages.
First, comes the entry phase, in which the psychopath charms the hiring
team into selecting him or her for the job. Then comes the assessment
phase. Here, the psychopathic employee identifies the potential support
network of Patrons (those who will protect and defend the psychopath),
Pawns (those who can be unwittingly manipulated into using their power in
service of the psychopath's aims), and Organisational Police (staff in such
control functions as audit, security, human resources who might get in the
way). Stage three is manipulation: the psychopath works the patrons and
pawns, building the influence network through close and intense one-on-one
relationships and at the same time moving up the organisation. The next
stage is confrontation. Individuals no longer deemed useful discover
they've been wiped, relegated from close friend to Patsy. Two factions
start forming: influential supporters (Pawns and Patrons); and powerless
detractors (Patsies and Police). Finally, there's ascension. That's when
all that planning and manipulation pays off - the patrons are betrayed, the
boss is shoved aside and the psychopath moves in.
Babiak and Hare, who consults to the FBI on serial murders and child
abductions, are developing the B-Scan, a 107-item tool to assess managers,
executives, high-potential employees and succession candidates.
Hare's internationally recognised psychopathy Checklist, or PCL-R, is used
in criminal justice systems for identifying psychopaths.
Hare himself estimates that psychopaths account for only about 1 per cent
of the general population.
But he says there would be a higher proportion in such areas as business,
politics, law enforcement agencies, law firms, religious organisations and
yes, the media.
"They have a predatory quality to them and the prey is always around
certain areas," Dr Hare said.
"In the business world, if I was a good psychopath and I was well educated,
bright, intelligent, grew up in the proper way, knew how to talk and dress
and how to use a fork, I'm not going to go out and rob banks.
"They're attracted to where the action is. You're not going to find one of
these guys out in Alice Springs working in a pub hoping to become manager
in five years."
The two are also working on a book with the tentative title Snakes In
Suits: When Psychopaths Go To Work.
Many might say it's not before time. For all the tomes that have been
written on leadership - go to Google and you get 11.7 million links, search
on Amazon and you'll find nearly 13,000 books - very little has been
written about the dark side of management.
Even though those who rise to the top are often the most aggressive,
ambitious, wilful and bloody-minded in their peer group. Go figure.
Still, last year's parade of corporate chicanery might have changed that,
starting from Kenneth Lay and the Enronites who, among other things, made
bucketloads by unloading $US1.1 billion ($A1.85 billion) of shares between
January 1999 and July 2001, while telling investors and employees to hold
on to theirs. From John Rigas and his sons, who allegedly looted cable
television company Adelphia to buy items such as a private golf course, to
the gaggle of failed bosses who have no qualms about being paid out
millions of dollars.
So it's no surprise now that analysis of the dark side has come into vogue.
The B-Scan is a 360-degree assessment that works off an exhaustive
questionnaire, filled in by anyone who works with the employee. Typically,
these would include the immediate supervisor, subordinates, former bosses,
peers and internal business customers.
They will grade the subject's tendencies in areas and categories and
sub-categories. These categories include "insincere" (for example, "makes a
well-packaged slick presentation", "difficult to pin down on personal
details"), untrustworthy ("will say or do anything to get his own way",
"tells a larger than usual number of white lies"), manipulative, arrogant,
insensitive, remorseless, shallow, blaming, impatient, erratic, unreliable,
unfocused, parasitic, dramatic, unethical and bullying.
The results are then sent to the test publisher or authorised consultants
and scored.
One of the problems in identifying the corporate psychopath is that it's a
world in which some of the defining characteristics are commonplace.
Many successful managers and executives can, for example, be grandiose and
narcissistic; but that doesn't necessarily mean they're psychopaths.
Similarly, many organisations are set up in ways that foster these kinds of
behaviours.
For example, it's doubtful whether the B-Scan would have picked up
widespread psychopathy at Enron, which was suffused with arrogance, where
the Darwinian "rank and yank" performance-appraisal system encouraged
traders and different groups to sabotage each other, and where reluctance
to acknowledge losses resulted in accounting trickery to paper them over.
Still, this kind of research reminds us not to get too carried away with
claims from some in the leadership industry that it's about inspiration and
charisma. Those can be just as dangerous as psychopathy.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/20/1045638423969.html
