Is Your Boss a Psychopath?

Dogers writes "Robert Hare, creator of the Psychopathy Checklist, has recently been applying his test 'Is your boss a psychopath' to businessmen and has found some disturbing results. From the article: 'Why wouldn't we want to screen them? We screen police officers, teachers. Why not people who are going to handle billions of dollars?'. Citing Enron and Worldcom management as an example, it seems a reasonable argument. The same source also has a quiz (magazine produced it seems) which allows you to test your own boss, too!"

Comments

You would *have* to be a psychopath..

[BlackCobra43]

to basically earn your way through life by exploiting and berating underlings, some of which are inevitably of equal or even superior skill and/or intellect to you.

Re:You would *have* to be a psychopath..

[rho]

Since this is Slashdot, I will couch the example in terms Slashdotters can understand:

You have a nerd. He's smart. He wants to do what he wants to do, and what he wants to do is almost never go through the bug-list and fix bugs. He wants to do new and clever things which may or may not be of any value to anybody but the nerd.

You have a boss. He berates and exploits the nerd to get him to do his fucking job, which is maintaining and supporting the application he wrote which has a bug-list as long as his arm.

If you don't want to work in a structured corporate environment where you have a boss, and maybe a boss's boss, then quit and start your own business. Except if you do, I should warn you that you'll soon start to understand where your boss was coming from as you discover than people are, by and large, lazy and ungrateful shits.

In the microcosm of business, you need slaves and you need taskmasters. Being a slave sucks, and the taskmasters are sucky, but the cotton isn't going to pick itself.

Re:The question is why do they exist?

[CDarklock]

> Surely in ancient times psycopathy would not
> have got you far. You'd likely be expelled
> from a society or likely killed.

I'd think the psychopaths would probably be the ones doing the killing.

Why psychopaths exist...

[pieterh]

The reason is quite simple.

Much of our history has been dominated by violence, and our ancestors are those who survived violent episodes. Either by being very smart, very cute, or very evil.

Psychopaths are overwhelmingly male and psychopathic behaviour is generally evidenced by the ability to hurt and harm others without the usual remorse and empathic pain that most people feel.

The reason why only a small fraction of people show this behaviour is because (a) it's quite counterproductive in stable societies, so quickly gets pushed into marginal genepools (the bad boys of any village), and (b) it has a large component of environmental triggering, meaning that many people (mainly men, again) can exhibit psychopathic behavour given the right circumstances.

Why are psychopaths so charming? Partly because it works well in conflict situations. Partly because it acts to deflect attention. Selection works at the gene level, and the charming psychopathic genes have survived civilisation much better than the pure violence ones.

Re:The question is why do they exist?

[PaxTech]

Capitalism and psychopathy go hand in hand. That's why it has survived today.

Definitely. No other ideology in history has produced so many psychopaths.

Re:Politicians

[schtum]

It's practically a pre-requisite. You're being modded "Funny" because there's no "Damn, he's right".

Re:The question is why do they exist?

[dr_dank]

If Psycopathy has a genetic component, then has it survived natural selection. Surely in ancient times psycopathy would not have got you far. You'd likely be expelled from a society or likely killed.

To me, it seems like an extension of the "survival of the fittest" meme. People who can manipulate others and use influence to benefit their own ends usually wind up getting more wealth, beautiful women attracted to such, etc etc. Think of the elite hunter-gatherers, who had a ton of food and was attractive to mates due to their cunning and ability to provide, thusly spreading their genes further.

I think theres a better question

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Who cares if your boss is a psycho, when we work out why people who do all the work (manual labour etc.) get 10 times less money then the people who point and go "Get it done by next week" (managers). I think we'll be about ready to ask pointless questions like these..

Re:The question is why do they exist?

[kin_korn_karn]

Capitalism rewards psychopathic behavior inherently. All of the people you just smugly linked to were psychopaths in -spite- of their ideology.

What about politicians .....?

[Alien54]

What about Politicians and political commentators?

or does that occupation render them immune?

The problem is that most folks have a natural inclination to disbelieving that sort of thing, especially if it involves their own fearless leader.

The unbeleivability factor of it is perfect camoflage.

Re:What about politicians .....?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

If you read the article, narcism is a pre-requisit. The difference between Andrew Festow and Bill Gates is namely that Bill Gates (while big headed and meglomaniacal) thinks of the company as an extension of himself. Festow saw the company as a means to an end.

Narcisists are very beneficial to a company. Psychopaths will sell it and the shareholders up the river as soon as it benefits his self interest. And even more scary, psychopaths LOOK for those oppertunities because it thrills them.

Re:The question is why do they exist?

[BlackCobra43]

Funny that all of but one of them suscribed to totalitarianism and not true communism.

Dictators are psychopaths, go figure. As for Che, revolutionnairies are usually psychopaths as well.

Don't be so quick to judge

[jgardn]

I would laugh and agree with you, but I can't. See, I have taken the time to meet and actually discuss the real issues with these folks.

Yes, they come off to casual observers as being glib and superficially charming. But that is because when they are campaigning they are meeting literally hundreds and thousands of people a day. Try doing that and not acting glib. I saw an example of this last night. One of the people in our group complained about a recent decision by the city council. How many times have they heard this? I am guessing at least 10, maybe 20 times a day. Anyway, the one gal gives the canned, practiced response. How many times had she given this? At least as many times as she heard the complaint. It was a reasonable response, but you had to think about it for a while to understand the real issues. But to the casual observer, it was glib, superficially charming, and meaningless.

Politicians aren't generally liars or grandiose. Those are the ones you see on TV and read about in the paper. The vast majority of politicians only show up when it's election time, and they have to attempt to manipulate you to vote for them. All of them must make this rite of passage. The only ones that don't are those who are in appointed positions.

As far as callous and shallow, this is again a trait that the minority has. The vast majority, on both sides of the aisle, really care about what they doing and are pouring their heart and soul into their work. They can't care about everything, though. They can't even know about everything. So while you may see one at a funeral who isn't touched, remember that this is probably the third funeral of the week, and that they probably don't know the guy personally or at least to the point where they have become emotionally attached. After all, it's only politics, and if you become emotionally attached to people prepare for serious heartbreak when they endorse your opponent or turn on you after a bad decision.

Lack of remorse or guilt, and a failure to accept responsibility... I think you have to really get to know them and see the problems from their perspective. Sometimes, they knew there would be fallout, and they are prepared to accept the bad parts because they want the good part. So when those who are affected by the fallout come to complain, they are going to seem callous. Or would you rather have them say, "I knew this was going to happen, and you would be affected this way, and I made the decision regardless. It was a tough decision, but it was the best damn decision I could've made. And basically you weren't here to show us a better decision and it's water under the bridge now. I know you won't care about what I have to say because you can't see past your own problems, so I won't bother explaining. Just get it out of your system and let us move on to more important things."

But another thing you will see is that politicians, at the end of the day, are used and abused by their constituents. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people support a candidate only to turn on them moments later, only to support them moments later. It's a roller coaster ride, and the only way politicians can cope is to stay emotionally detached in their work. If there's crying to be done, it's done very privately on the shoulder of their spouse or very. very close and trusted friends. Otherwise, emotion can't enter into it. If it does, they will quickly become psychopathic.

I want to emphasize that there are a few psychopaths in politics, on both sides of the aisle. They probably aren't who you think they are and a few of the ones who you think aren't probably are. You will find them somewhat equally distributed throughout all levels of politics. Use the criteria, but apply it individually. And you must take the time to get to know the candidate personally. I tell you from experience that the local newspaper is abou as trustworthy as the pious gossip at your local church. If you base any of your opinions on what you see or read second- or third-hand, prepare to be misinformed.

Re:Don't be so quick to judge

[arbitraryaardvark]

That was a thoughtful and passionate response, and there's some element of truth to it, but I'm mostly going to argue the other side.
  Governments, whether democratic or dictatorships, tend to be hierarchical structures in which people compete for dominance. Sociopaths seem to have advantages in that struggle, especially where there is information scarcity and they can cover up bad behavior.
  I've observed three sets of populations where high sociopathic scores seem to confer an advantage:
a) law school b) the US presidency c) the ghetto.
I got interested in Robert Caro's biography of LBJ, and have been reading dozens of books about who gets to be president and how. It looks like LBJ was a sociopath, as were Joe Kennedy and Bill Clinton. I haven't read enough on FDR to say, but he's also worth looking into. So that this doesn't look partisan, I would also say that the Bush dynasty - Prescot, George I, W, would score high. See also Nixon.

Law school rewarded people who were smart, hard working, and completely lacking in a conscience. That seemed to be a deliberate part of the training - people would come in full of idealism and leave as hired guns. I now how to deal with these people as lawyers for the state, who put winning above doing the right thing or obeying their oath of office. They could use this quiz instead of the bar exam, and get similar results.

I am a poor but honest lawyer, so I live in the hood. A lot of my neighbors are crackheads or alcoholics. Substance abuse seems to turn people into sociopaths, ready to lie or cheat or steal to get a quick fix, with little thought to the long term damage to their reputations.

The solution, if there is one, to dealing with sociopaths, is information management. Their strategy of ruthlessless has short term payoffs,
at the cost of long term damage to their reputations, if and when the truth comes out.
'Wuffie' is cory doctorow's term for reputation capital. In http://www.craphoud.com/down Down and out in the Magic Kingdom, he outlines a future economy based on post-scarcity, open source, and reputation capital.
  Applying that to the now, open a dossier on your boss, or local tyrants, if you see sociopathic tendencies. Collect information, be ready to make it public anonymously once a critcal mass is reached. Sooner or later, these types tend to shoot themselves in the foot.

Re:"Sociopath", not psychopath

[Rob Carr]

I just asked the psychologist sitting next to me.

She seems to think most politicians are APD. She claims that it's what makes them good politicians. She cites Jimmy Carter as someone who's not enough of a sociopath.

If you think about it, that explains an awful lot.

Replies are scarier than the story

[Kefaa]

I am just amazed at the number of people posting "That's what you want in an exec." or "That is how companies need to run to return value." Are we really that misguided as a society? Do the 71% of Americans who claim to go to church actually listen? (Or maybe they do not really attend). Not that church is a requirement for morality, but at least it should be a standard we can claim a measure against.

The problem is becoming more clear as I read the replies and see what is happening daily. We want ethical treatment but if the other person is acting unethical then heck, I should too. To those who would claim I am misguided, I would say they are. That it is just the way things work in the real world is because of people who go quietly into the dark, seeking nothing but protection for themselves at the expense of others.

That is what some of the executive who went to prison missed. They made a lot of people a lot of money, and most of them were probably not asking about the details. (For example, most of the get tough laws promised and passed by Congress were never enacted.) However, ethics is not something you do, it is something you are and it is binary choice. You cannot be "sort of" unethical or immoral. That is not to say you cannot make mistakes, humans do. However, to excuse behavior as a long series of mistakes makes you an accessory, not an observer. Part of the problem.

That's been my experience as well

[mdarksbane]

I was always under the naive impression that anyone in office was a sociopath who cared about power or money or whatever, and had therefore concocted a detailed plot to use the government and people for their own benefit.

Then I actually job shadowed a state senator for a day, sat in on a couple meetings and the general assembly... and I realize that they aren't (for the most part) psychopathic or plotting...

They're just... average.

And then I realized that the horrible state of legislation was not the result of malice, but of the pure incompetent that infects the entire society. These were the C students in high school who had the right connections, or just the right interests. They were the masses that I have spent my entire life trying not to disdain because they do not comprehend most complex issues as quickly as my "gifted" friends.

Heinlein once said (paraphrased) than an elected official, ideally, represents a slightly above average member of his electorate. I realized that day that when I consider my opinion of most people I meet, I am not surprised at all at what comes out of the capital. It is no hand-picked best of the best representatives, nor a oligarchy of vile schemers, but simply a vaguely representative group of the more affluent members of our society.

Unfortunately, I think that this realization made me expect even less out of government. An intelligent psychopath at least acts intelligently in his own interest, as opposed to blindly herding in whatever direction is popular today.

Re:Douglas Adams knew why

[demachina]

"Why do so many bosses suck?"

The key problem is bosses ARE screened .... by each other. The people doing the hiring LIKE people with this psychopathic profile, because they want people just like them. Its no accident sales and marketing people are the ones most like to make the jump in to senior management because aggressive salesman with no morales are the one this good ole boy network promotes. Its also why R&D is cratering in the U.S. and most U.S. companies are fixated on making their quarterly sales numbers instead of making companies that are built to last, that and the stock market totally incentivizes companies to nail quarters and cannibalize the future.

Worst problem with American CEO's is they are hired by boards that are basically a good ole boy crony network. They all golf together, are members of the same country clubs, go to the same parties, and were in the same partying fraternities in college. They tend to not evaluate CEO's with a critical eye they are just hiring their friends, with the understanding that the people hire will in turn do favors for them and serve on their boards.

Then the problem extends downward. The CEO in turn hires good ole boys as President and VP's who in turn hire good ole boys in training to be middle management.

Re:easy

[rben]

Because people are not machines and if you fail to understand how people really work, you will invariably be a bad manager. You really think that the guys at Enron did a good job? Billions of dollars were stolen from investors.

I've known a few of these people. I knew one manager who emotionally tortured a twenty-year old woman he was attracted to, as part of his plan to seduce her. This is the kind of guy you want to hand billions of dollars to?

Handling billions of dollars requires someone who has higher principles, not no principles. Enron is a perfect example. If you never feel remorse, why not steal? If you have no compassion for those you will hurt, there is no reason why you shouldn't operate in a purely selfish manner.

Corporate officers have to act on behalf of other people, the stock holders. They also have a responsibility to the people who work for the company, because, contrary to what seems to be taught at most business schools, in todays economy, the talent and dedication of your employees is worth as much or more as the capital you have to work with. If you hire people who are incapable of relating to other human beings and who are completely self-involved, they will invariably destroy the company.

It isn't being soft or wishy-washy to want sane and rational people working in top management, it's just good sense.

Re:Are your government leaders psychopaths?

[stienman]

1) Most of your answers are exceptionally narrow and don't fully answer the question.
2) You can take nearly any previous president: ask the same questions, and get similar responses. Clinton is an easy target, but even revered leaders (Washington, Lincoln, and certianly presidents of the last century) can be vilified using the same techniques you are using to vilify President Bush.

Your claim that Bush is a psychopath is unconvincing. He may be to a certian extent, the question of how severe a psychopath he is remains unanswered. Were that question answered it wouldn't necessarily cast light on his suitability for presidency.

Nice propoganda, though. You should be in PR - a good place for psychopaths.

-Adam

Re:Sociopaths

[Divide By Zero]

Breaking the law, lying, acting on impulse, starting fights, putting oneself in danger, slacking off and not caring.

Does this remind anybody else of high school, or is it just me?