Content uploaded by Nathan Brooks
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nathan Brooks on Jan 22, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Problem Personalities in the Workplace: Development of the Corporate Personality Inventory
Abstract
The notion that individuals with psychopathic personality characteristics exist in the corporate world is both a logical extension of the estimated community prevalence rates of the disorder, as well as a scientific hypothesis based on the observation that a number of the characteristics of the disorder could convey an advantage within this context (Crant & Bateman, 2000; Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985). The research sought to develop a self-repot assessment inventory to effectively measure non-criminal psychopathy to aid in the detection of psychopathic personality traits in individuals within business contexts. A key part of the scale development involved testing it's construct, divergent and convergent validity, as well as the reliability of the subscales identified through factor analysis. This involved examining the bivariate corrections between the factors and subscales of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R) and Corporate Personality Inventory (CPI), as well as the Paulhus Deception Scales.
... From this dimensional perspective, there is strong interest in examining the presence and influence of psychopathy in everyday life (Dutton, 2012;Babiak and Hare, 2019;Fritzon et al., 2020). In this sense, some scientific publications have warned that a significant percentage of the general population has psychopathy, a percentage that in some studies and in some subpopulations may reach 6% (Hagnell et al., 1994) or even 12% (Love and Holder, 2014) or 21% (Fritzon et al., 2017). The existence of such a high number of people with psychopathy may be surprising and even disturbing, given the social, economic, physical, and psychological damage that psychopaths supposedly produce in many people around them (Hare, 1993;Babiak and Hare, 2019). ...
... In summary, the prevalence rates of psychopathy, clinical or subclinical, found in the present study are low and similar to those found in the few previous studies conducted with community samples that used a procedure to define psychopathy similar to the one used in the present study, in the sense that such procedures required the presence of at least 75 and 60% of psychopathic characteristics to identify clinical and subclinical psychopathy, respectively. In fact, among the differences that exist between the studies that have obtained high prevalence rates of psychopathy in the general population (e.g., Hagnell et al., 1994;Love and Holder, 2014;Fritzon et al., 2017) and the studies that, like this one, have obtained low prevalence rates (e.g., Neumann and Hare, 2008;Coid et al., 2009;Robitaille et al., 2017), perhaps the most important has to do with the way clinical and subclinical psychopathy is defined. In this sense, it is important to point out three issues. ...
... First, many psychopathy assessment instruments based on models that conceive psychopathy as a maladaptive variant of the normal personality, such as the PPI-R or the LSRP, do not have validated cut-off scores to identify clinical or subclinical psychopathy. Second, most of the studies that have found high prevalence rates of psychopathy have used not validated procedures for defining psychopathy (Hagnell et al., 1994;Love and Holder, 2014;Fritzon et al., 2017), some of those based on the PPI-R or the LSRP (Love and Holder, 2014;Fritzon et al., 2017) and biased to find high prevalence rates (Fritzon et al., 2017). For example, given that most psychopathy assessment instruments based on models that conceive psychopathy as a maladaptive variant of the normal personality provide total scores that are normally distributed in the population, defining clinical psychopathy as 1.5 standard deviations above the mean total score (Fritzon et al., 2017) implies, by definition, obtaining psychopathy prevalence rates of at least 6.7%. ...
The main objective of this work is to examine the prevalence of psychopathy in the general adult population from the main currently existing theoretical perspectives of psychopathy, using for this purpose the five-factor or Big Five model as a common language that allows the comparison and integration of the personality traits considered as defining psychopathy by these different perspectives. The NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R) was applied to a sample of 682 adults of the general Spanish population. The prevalence of clinical and subclinical psychopathy was calculated according to six different definitions of these two constructs based on Hare’s, Lilienfeld’s, triarchic, and DSM-5-hybrid models, and the simultaneous presence of a minimum number of personality traits that differed from the sample mean by one standard deviation. Prevalence rates for the different definitions were consistently low, indicating that the prevalence of clinical psychopathy in the general Spanish population is around 0.55%, and that of subclinical psychopathy is around 1.65%. There were no significant sex differences in the prevalence of psychopathy. These results question the alarmist claims that warn about the existence in society of a very high number of people with psychopathy who can cause many social, economic, physical, and psychological damage to others.
... Reducing the Dark Triad to a singular construct can conceal unique data about each trio member (Ackerman et al., 2011). Second, Fritzon et al. (2016) highlight that questionnaires used in organizational research are often confounded to criminal or antisocial behaviours and may be inapt for identifying the Dark Triad in the workplace. Third, Trahair et al. (2020) argue that studies have employed measures that primarily examine the 'brighter side' of narcissism (i.e., , which is problematic as Antagonistic Narcissism has stronger links to psychopathy and Machiavellianism. ...
... Which EMS correlate with the three facets of corporate psychopathy (i.e., Ruthlessness, Interpersonal Dominance, and Boldness), as measured by the Corporate Personality Inventory-Revised (CPI-R;Fritzon et al., 2016). (iv) Do the Dark Triad facets exhibit unique and discernible correlations with specific EMSs? ...
Early maladaptive schemas (EMS) may contribute to the Dark Triad’s (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy) dysfunctional workplace outcomes. EMS — the core concept of Schema Therapy — are entrenched emotional, cognitive, memories, and physiological patterns that form during early life in response to unmet needs and elaborate throughout life. As the workplace can involve hierarchy and power, EMS may be potentially reinforced in this context. This novel study aimed to explore the relationships between EMS and the Dark Triad facets within a working sample. The study also examined whether the Dark Triad facets yield distinct relationships with EMSs. The sample ( N = 210) reported working ≥ 20 h per week in paid- or full-time role in private and public sectors. Participants completed an online self-report survey comprising the Young Schema Questionnaire Short Form-Third Edition, Five Factor Narcissism Inventory-Short Form (Antagonism and Extraversion facets), Five Factor Machiavellianism Inventory (Planfulness, Antagonism and Agency facets), and Corporate Psychopathy Inventory-Revised (Boldness, Ruthlessness, and Interpersonal Dominance facets). Zero-order correlations indicated that all Dark Triad facets significantly and positively correlated with the Entitlement/Grandiosity, Unrelenting Standards, and Punitiveness EMSs. Most Dark Triad facets positively correlated with Approval/Recognition Seeking and Mistrust/Abuse EMSs. The Entitlement/Grandiosity EMS demonstrated the strongest positive correlation with most Dark Triad facets. The results suggest that those with elevated Dark Triad traits in the working sample share a similar cognitive and emotional worldview (i.e., EMS) that may activate in the workplace context. Expanding this research could inform a ‘Dark’ Schema Workplace model and Schema Therapy interventions to potentially reduce the Dark Triad’s dysfunctional workplace outcomes.
... The ascent of such individuals is also confirmed in several empirical investigations. For example, Babiak et al. (2010) found that up to 6% of top managers showed psychopathic traits while Fritzon et al. (2017) found even 21% of managers to display substantially elevated psychopathic traits in the supply chain context. In comparison, the prevalence in the general population is merely about 1%. ...
Since the beginning of business research and teaching, the basic assumptions of the discipline have been intensely debated. One of these basic assumptions concerns the behavioral aspects of human beings, which are traditionally represented in the construct of homo economicus. These assumptions have been increasingly challenged in light of findings from social, ethnological, psychological, and ethical research. Some publications from an integrative perspective have suggested that homo economicus embodies to a high degree dark character traits, particularly related to the construct of psychopathy, representing individuals who are extremely self-centered and ruthless, without feelings of remorse or compassion. While a growing body of research notes such a similarity on a more or less anecdotal basis, this article aims to explore this connection from a more rigorous perspective, bridging insights from psychological, economic, and business research to better understand the potentially dark traits of homo economicus. The analysis shows that homo economicus is not simply some kind of psychopath, but specifically a so-called subclinical or Factor 1 psychopath, who is also referred to as a “corporate psychopath” in business research. With such an analysis, the paper adds an additional perspective and a deeper psychological level of understanding as to why homo economicus is often controversially debated. Based on these insights, several implications for academic research and teaching are discussed and reflected upon in light of an ethics of virtue and care.
... The "successful psychopath" is unsupported by empirical findings that psychopathy is negatively associated with status, wealth, and financial success (Ullrich et al., 2008). More recently, individual who scores high on psychopathy was found to be more resilient and persist in the face of adversity and often occupies a high corporate status and a leadership position (Fritzon et al., 2016;Sandvik et al., 2015). It seems that psychopathy might be adaptive to an economically unequal context. ...
Does an environment of high economic inequality encourage and breed the Dark Triad traits (i.e., Machiavel-lianism, narcissism, and psychopathy)? In four studies, using correlational and experimental methods, we sought to elucidate the nexus between economic inequality perception and the Dark Triad. Study 1 (N = 454) indicated that individuals who perceive greater inequality score higher on the Dark Triad traits (except for psychopathy). When living in an economically unequal context, people tend to endorse the behaviors and mindsets of the Dark Triad traits except for psychopathy (Study 2; N = 199). People considered residents in an economically unequal society as high on the Dark Triad traits (Study 3; N = 159). Moreover, the Dark Triad traits (except for psy-chopathy) are considered as adaptive, allowing people to obtain more benefits in an economically unequal society (Study 4; N = 157). This study extends the determinants of the Dark Triad traits to the economic environment, thus enriching our understanding of the Dark Triad and its distal shaping factor.
... In practice, many of the most promoted managers exhibit psychopathic deviations Fritzon, K. et.al. (2017), which give them asymmetric advantage over other people who have moral limitations of their actions. That helps them to be competitive in the short term despite the lack of actual qualities, necessary for the job -Smith, S.F., Watts,.A.L., Lilienfeld, S. (2014). There are three main reasons for these unexpected results: ...
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the inconsistency of current practices in people management such as forced distribution ranking with probability theory and dynamic systems theory. The naïve use of data turns evaluations in lottery and does more harm than good as we try to demonstrate. Annual performance ratings do not take in consideration the long-term variation in the process, the input to output transfer function of the employee, the network structure of relations in teams and the errors of measurement. Their motivation goal is counterproductive and can easily lead a company to decline.
Keywords: statistics, probability theory, management, network theory, control theory; forced distribution, system science
... On the other hand, research which investigated workplace accomplishment and psychopathy determined that employers should embed a tool for assessing psychopathy into employee selection procedures to keep psychopaths out of key positions because of the excessive risks involved in appointing them (Blickle et al. 2018). Commentators write that as people who are high in psychopathic traits are to be found in management (Board and Fritzon 2005), psychopathy measures designed for use in corporate settings could be utilized in suitable recruitment and screening procedures (Fritzon et al. 2016). Similarly, in considering psychopaths for the financial sector, a somewhat understated recommendation has been made for finance firms to be more adroit at hiring people with good morals (DeCovny 2012). ...
Leadership is crucially important because it magnifies the morality of the leader, spreading through organizations, communities and societies in a “leadership multiplier effect”. Yet many of those who ascend to leadership are inept at best and toxic at worst. This chapter considers personal, organizational, environmental and cultural reasons why individuals like subclinical psychopaths ascend to senior leadership positions. Personal reasons include individual personality traits that are wrongly perceived as charming yet propel those with ruthless ambition forward. Organizational explanations encompass inadequate methods of identifying effective versus toxic leaders, while environmental elucidations involve the rapid turnover of personnel and their replacement with employees whose characteristics are only known superficially. Cultural reasons include corporate climates which drive for profit and turn a blind eye to workplace bullying.
Eine Analyse von Psychopathie im Arbeitskontext zeigt, dass die Prävalenz von Psychopathie bei hochrangigen Führungskräften gegenüber der Normalbevölkerung deutlich erhöht ist (Coid, Yang, Ullrich, Roberts & Hare, 2009, Neumann & Hare, 2008, zitiert nach Mathieu, Neumann, Hare & Babiak, 2013). Zwar rückt der Zusammenhang von Psychopathie und Führung zunehmend in den Fokus von Forschung und Medien, doch die komplexen Zusammenhänge zwischen Führungsverhalten und psychopathischen Merkmalen sind noch unzureichend erforscht (Germain, 2024; Mathieu et al., 2014). Psychopathie wird häufig mit negativ konnotierten Eigenschaften wie Kaltherzigkeit, Impulsivität und Unehrlichkeit, die Organisationen und deren Mitgliedern schaden können, in Verbindung gebracht (Koglin & Petermann, 2007; Schütte & Blickle, 2016). Dennoch deuten einige Studien darauf hin, dass einige psychopathische Merkmale unter bestimmten Bedingungen auch von Vorteil sein können. So wird Psychopathie unter anderem mit Führungsqualität, Überzeugungskraft und Krisenmanagement in Verbindung gebracht (Lilienfeld, Waldmann, Landfield, Watts, Rubenzer & Faschingbauer, 2012).
Recent decades have witnessed numerous headline stories about white-collar crimes. These crimes, causing considerable harm to organizations, individuals, and society, warrant closer study. This article describes financial white-collar offenders mostly from a medium or high socioeconomic background who abuse their positions. It presents theoretical explanations for white-collar offending, together with associated psychological, personality, and cognitive traits that impair rational decision-making. Regarding their punishment, doubts have been cast regarding the possibility that even harsh criminal punishment achieves the aim of deterrence for white-collar offenders. This does not mean that offenders should go unpunished, and in certain cases it would even be justified to deal with them severely. It does, however, require more meaningful goals to be set for their punishment, such as maintaining social order, retribution, and, in some cases, possibly rehabilitation through psychological treatment. Therapeutic intervention could be effective in helping white-collar offenders tackle the root causes of their behaviors and in reducing the likelihood of reoffending.
The main objective of this study was to systematically and meta-analytically review the scientific literature on the prevalence of psychopathy in the general adult population. A search in PsycInfo, MEDLINE, and PSICODOC identified 15 studies published as of June 2021. Altogether, 16 samples of adults totaling 11,497 people were evaluated. Joint prevalence rates were calculated using reverse variance heterogeneity models. Meta-regression analyses were conducted to examine whether the type of instrument, sex, type of sample, and country influenced prevalence. The meta-analytical results obtained allow us to estimate the prevalence rate of psychopathy in the general adult population at 4.5%. That being said, this rate varies depending on the participants' sex (higher in males), the type of sample from the general population (higher in samples from organizations than in community samples or university students), and the type of instrument used to define psychopathy. In fact, using the PCL-R, which is currently considered the “gold standard” for the assessment and definition of psychopathy, the prevalence is only 1.2%. These results are discussed in the context of the different theoretical perspectives and the existing problems when it comes to defining the construct of psychopathy.
The Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R) has been developed for use in assessing psychopathy in community samples. Recent research into so-called ‘successful psychopaths’ and ‘corporate psychopaths’ has highlighted the potential prevalence of psychopathy in the community at large, and more specifically psychopathy amongst business executives. In this paper we study high functioning business executives and focus on the measurement of psychopathy, specifically the viability of various factor structures of the PPI-R. We employed two large business associations’ databases and obtained a usable sample of 501 responses. The results support the second-order factor of Fearless Dominance (along with the first-order factors of Social Influence, Fearlessness, and Stress Immunity). In addition, the results indicate the second-order factor of Self-Centered Impulsivity with the first-order factors of Machiavellian Egocentricity, Blame Externalization, Rebellious Nonconformity, and Carefree Nonplanfulness. Our results also support previous studies which suggest that Coldheartedness as a latent trait did not seem to relate to Fearless Dominance or Self-Centered Impulsivity. In addition to discussing our results, we also explore limitations and future research in understanding how psychopathy manifests itself in the high-functioning business population.
Few psychological concepts evoke simultaneously as much fascination and misunderstanding as psychopathic personality, or psychopathy. Typically, individuals with psychopathy are misconceived as fundamentally different from the rest of humanity and as inalterably dangerous. Popular portrayals of "psychopaths" are diverse and conflicting, ranging from uncommonly impulsive and violent criminal offenders to corporate figures who callously and skillfully manuever their way to the highest rungs of the social ladder. Despite this diversity of perspectives, a single well-validated measure of psychopathy, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991; 2003), has come to dominate clinical and legal practice over recent years. The items of the PCL-R cover two basic content domains-an interpersonal-affective domain that encompasses core traits such as callousness and manipulativeness and an antisocial domain that entails disinhibition and chronic antisocial behavior. In most Western countries, the PCL-R and its derivatives are routinely applied to inform legal decisions about criminal offenders that hinge upon issues of dangerousness and treatability. In fact, clinicians in many cases choose the PCL-R over other, purpose-built risk-assessment tools to inform their opinions about what sentence offenders should receive, whether they should be indefinitely incarcerated as a "dangerous offender" or "sexually violent predator," or whether they should be transferred from juvenile to adult court. The PCL-R has played an extraordinarily generative role in research and practice over the past three decades-so much so, that concerns have been raised that the measure has become equated in many minds with the psychopathy construct itself (Skeem & Cooke 2010a). Equating a measure with a construct may impede scientific progress because it disregards the basic principle that measures always imperfectly operationalize constructs and that our understanding of a construct is ever-evolving (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). In virtually any domain, the construct-validation process is an incremental one that entails shifts in conceptualization and measurement at successive points in the process of clarifying the nature and boundaries of a hypothetical entity. Despite the predominance of the PCL-R measurement model in recent years, vigorous scientific debates have continued regarding what psychopathy is and what it is not. Should adaptive, positive-adjustment features (on one hand) and criminal and antisocial behaviors (on the other) be considered essential features of the construct? Are anxious and emotionally reactive people that are identified as psychopaths by the PCL-R and other measures truly psychopathic? More fundamentally, is psychopathy a unitary entity (i.e., a global syndrome with a discrete underlying cause), or is it rather a configuration of several distinguishable, but intersecting trait dimensions? Although these and other controversies remain unresolved, theory and research on the PCL-R and alternative measures have begun to clarify the scope and boundaries of the psychopathy construct. In the current comprehensive review, we provide an integrative descriptive framework-the triarchic model-to help the reader make sense of differing conceptualizations. The essence of this model is that alternative perspectives on psychopathy emphasize, to varying degrees, three distinct observable (phenotypic) characteristics: boldness (or fearless dominance), meanness, and disinhibition. The triarchic framework is helpful for clarifying and reconciling seemingly disparate historical conceptions, modern operationalizations, and contemporary research programs on psychopathy. Our review addresses what psychopathy is, whether variants or subtypes exist (i.e., primary and secondary, unsuccessful and successful), the sorts of causal influences that contribute to psychopathy, how early in development psychopathy can validly be identified, and how psychopathy relates to future criminal behavior and treatment outcomes. Despite controversies and nuances inherent in each of these topics, the current state of scientific knowledge bears clear implications for public policy. Policy domains range from whether psychopathic individuals should be held responsible for their criminal actions to whether employers should screen job candidates for tendencies toward psychopathy. In many cases, the findings we review converge to challenge common assumptions that underpin modern applications of psychopathy measures and to call for cautions in their use. For example, contemporary measures of psychopathy, including the PCL-R, appear to evidence no special powers in predicting violence or other crime. Instead, they are about as predictive as purpose-built violence-risk-assessment tools, perhaps because they assess many of the same risk factors as those broader-band tools. Specifically, the PCL-R and other psychopathy measures derive most of their predictive utility from their "Factor 2" assessment of antisocial and disinhibitory tendencies; the "Factor 1" component of such measures, reflecting interpersonal and affective features more specific to psychopathy, play at best a small predictive role. Similarly, current measures of psychopathy do not appear to moderate the effects of treatment on violent and other criminal behavior. That is, an increasing number of studies suggest that psychopathic individuals are not uniquely "hopeless" cases who should be disqualified from treatment, but instead are general "high-risk" cases who need to be targeted for intensive treatment to maximize public safety. Misunderstandings about the criminal propensities and treatability of individuals achieving high scores on measures like the PCL-R have been perpetuated by professionals who interpret such high scores in a stereotypic manner, without considering nuances or issues of heterogeneity. A key message of our review is that classical psychopathy, whether measured by the PCL-R or other measures, is not monolithic; instead, it represents a constellation of multiple traits that may include, in varying degrees, the phenotypic domains of boldness, meanness, and disinhibition. Measures such as the PCL-R that do not directly assess features of low anxiety, fearlessness, or boldness more broadly tend to identify heterogeneous subgroups of individuals as psychopathic. As a consequence, efforts to apply one-size-fits-all public policies to psychopathic individuals may be doomed to failure. In aggregrate, these conclusions may help to shed light on what psychopathy is, and what it is not, and to guide policy interventions directed toward improved public health and public safety.
The possibility to assess psychopathy through self-report is debated, amongst others because psychopathic individuals may deliberately underreport psychopathic features (fake good). Meta-analytic research has shown an inverse relation between faking good and self-reported psychopathy, possibly indicating that faking good lowered psychopathy scores (response bias). Low faking good scores, could, however, also reflect true variance in psychopathic personality to the extent that it reflects a disregard of social conventions. Through a secondary analysis (Uzieblo et al., 2010; n = 675), we show that controlling for faking good significantly weakens, rather than strengthens, the associations between psychopathy scores and antisocial behavior (alcohol and drug abuse, indirect aggression, delinquency). These findings indicate that the inverse relation between faking good and self-reported psychopathy reflects true variance in psychopathy personality (i.e., low social desirability), not a response bias.
Although psychopathy often is considered the most toxic of the “types” that make up the Dark Triad of personality (psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism), its role in organizational leadership is the least explored. Using the B-Scan 360, a measure of corporate psychopathy, we investigated the relationships among employees’ perceptions of psychopathic traits in their supervisors, employee psychological distress, work–family conflict, and job satisfaction. Participants in two different samples, one civic and the other financial, rated their supervisors with the B-Scan 360, and completed self-report measures of psychological distress, work–family conflict, and job satisfaction. Structural equation modeling (SEM) indicated that in each sample B-Scan 360 scores of supervisors were directly and negatively related to employee job satisfaction. The two samples differed somewhat in the associations of the B-Scan 360 with employee psychological distress and work–family conflict. Overall, the results illustrate the effects of perceived psychopathic traits in supervisors on employee well-being and job-related attitudes.
Research on psychopathy among incarcerated White males has consistently demonstrated deficits in emotion processing and response inhibition. Using the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised to classify participants as psychopathic or nonpsychopathic, this study examined the performance of incarcerated White females on two laboratory tasks: a lexical decision task used to assess emotion processing and a passive avoidance task used to assess response inhibition. Contrary to prediction, deficits in performance typically exhibited by psychopathic males were not exhibited by psychopathic females in this sample. Implications of these findings are discussed and an interpretation of the results in the context of the response modulation hypothesis is presented.
In attempting to explain or deal with negative workplace behaviours such as workplace bullying, the notion of ‘workplace psychopaths’ has recently received much attention. Focusing on individual aspects of negative workplace behaviour is at odds with more systemic approaches that recognise the contribution of individual, organisational and societal influences, without seeking to blame a person(s) for their behaviour or personality disorder. Regarding a coworker as a psychopath is highly stigmatising, and given the relatively low prevalence of psychopathy in the community, is likely to be incorrect. Sources promoting the notion of workplace psychopathy provide lists of diagnostic criteria and appear to encourage the perception that it is common. This research examines how lay persons use behavioural criteria consistent with psychopathy and the label ‘psychopath’ in relation to a coworker. 307 Australian workers completed an online survey concerning their experience of workplace bullying, which also asked them to rate a coworker’s behaviour on a range of scales to assess perceptions of psychopathy. Rates of psychopathy, when using labels and behavioural criteria, were found to be much higher than scientific estimates of prevalence, for both participants who had been bullied and those who had not. A higher proportion of non-bullied participants classified a coworker as a psychopath when using the label ‘psychopath’, compared to when using behavioural criteria. The notion that there are psychopaths in every workplace should be treated with caution to ensure that the potential for ‘misdiagnosis’ and stigmatisation do not cause further harm in situations of unacceptable workplace behaviours.
This chapter looks at employees as a key resource in an organisation and explains how the productivity of this human resource can be helped or hindered by organisational rules and procedures, supervisors, managers and other constraints. It defines organisational constraints and then outlines why Corporate Psychopaths can affect them. The chapter discusses the findings from an empirical investigation into whether the presence of Corporate Psychopaths in an organisation influences the level of organisational constraints within it. It concludes that Corporate Psychopaths do influence the level of organisational constraints, by a large factor. As corporate psychopathy increases within an organisation, so does the level of organisational constraints. The implications for human resource selection and management policies are discussed in terms of the potential for screening employees for psychopathy.
The influx of attention regarding psychopathy in the workplace by media and scholars alike has increased dramatically over the last two decades. Nevertheless, this attention has greatly outstripped the scientific evidence, and strong claims regarding the toxic effects of workplace psychopathy in the absence of research continue unabated. The present article for the first time brings together the diverse and growing scientific literature on the implications of business psychopathy for (a) occupational and academic differences, (b) workplace aggression and counterproductive behavior, (c) ethical decision-making in the corporate world, (d) white-color crime, and (e) leadership. Across these domains, there is preliminary evidence that psychopathy is tied to at least some negative outcomes in the workplace, although there are also scattered suggestions of some positive outcomes. Nevertheless, because of numerous methodological limitations, definitive statements regarding the adverse and adaptive correlates of psychopathy in the workplace are premature. We conclude with 10 recommendations for future scholarship in the budding field of business psychopathy.
The triarchic model of psychopathy characterizes the disorder in terms of three distinguishable phenotypic facets: disinhibition, meanness and boldness. The present study sought to (1) inform current debates regarding the role of boldness in the definition of psychopathy and (2) clarify boundaries between psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). Method This study evaluated the degree to which facets of the triarchic model are represented in the most widely used clinical inventory for psychopathy, the Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R), in comparison with ASPD as defined by DSM-IV criteria. Adult male offenders from two distinct correctional settings (n = 157 and 169) were investigated to ensure replicability of findings across samples exhibiting high base rates of psychopathy and antisocial behavior.
We found evidence for convergent and discriminant validity of the three triarchic facets in predicting symptomatic components of psychopathy as assessed by the PCL-R. Additionally, and crucially vis-à-vis current debates in the field, we found that boldness contributed incrementally (over and above disinhibition and meanness) to prediction of PCL-R psychopathy, in particular its interpersonal style component, but not ASPD.
The three distinct facets of the triarchic model of psychopathy are represented clearly and distinctly in the PCL-R, with boldness through its interpersonal facet, but not in DSM-defined ASPD. Our findings suggest that boldness is central to diagnostic conceptions of psychopathy and distinguishes psychopathy from the more prevalent diagnosis of ASPD.
Having been largely unknown as a clinical entity, the narcissistic personality has recently come into the limelight. It is argued that one critical component in the orientation of leaders is the quality and intensity of their narcissistic development. In this paper, the relationship between narcissism and leadership is explored. Using concepts taken from psychoanalytic object relations theory, three narcissistic configurations found among leaders are presented: reactive, self-deceptive, and constructive. Their etiology, symptomatology, and defensive structure is discussed. The influence of each configuration on interpersonal relations and decision-making is examined in a managerial context.