Slashdot Mirror
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!"
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.
It's too common to be a mutation because genetic diseases often have percentage rates of 0.01% or below.
It makes me wonder!
Simon.
Why do so many bosses suck?
Because those who desire the power should be the least likely to have it. I've had some good bosses, and 90% of the time they didn't really want the job, they just kind of grew into it over time.
Other times - whew. There was the one boss who, coming in the first day, told everybody that he wasn't there to be a friend, and he could fire the whole department at a moment's notice if he wanted.
5 minutes later I was dusting off my resume. When he found me dressing nice (so I could go on lunch breaks, which were really interviews), he told me he'd fired me if he caught me interviewing somewhere else. And he'd know, because he had "contacts" all over town who would tell him. "Contacts" who would call him and ask if I was applying somewhere. Private eyes - were watching me - they'd see my every move.
Oddly enough, I guess his contacts forgot to call him three days later when I quit and went to my new, higher paying, better hours job.
So if nothing else, I'm thankful for bad bosses, since they seem to be the greatest force in people finding new and better jobs. (Even though they suck.)
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Actually most of them have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). This often resembles psycopathy at first but it is really quite different.
Because if screening teachers & policemen for psychopaths has taught us anything, it's that it obviously doesn't work.
And secondly, are we to assume that if you are a psychopath you cannot do your job?
The faster we get this mess over with, the better. We should just start offering MBA's to the prisioners in all the "super-max" facilities.... That way, they could start being useful immed. upon their return to society. I can just see it now...."IPO to be offered upon parole"
To prove my point... http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=5176
see the story about this guy, he's continuing to get paid WHILE he's serving 18 mos. for criminal offenses. The board kept him on because he's a "visionary" and "knows the business" the best!
See what I mean?
You know it always annoys me when I see these two words confused. As I was taught, a psychopath cannot hide his mental illness. A psychopath is the person who crashes into McDonalds and starts shooting. Sociopaths are serial killers that manage to hide their predilections for years without getting caught.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
Anti-Social Personality Disorder (formerly known as psychopathy) is a DSM-4 disorder that has a wide variety of presentations. "Psychopaths" is quicker to type.
Normally, people think of psychopaths as con-men and serial killers. These are the ones that are noticed by the system. What about those who aren't? These are referred to as "functional" psychopaths.
An advertisement, placed in newspapers and designed to appeal to psychopaths by presenting their features in a good light by saying they needed someone who wasn't tied down, loved adventure and excitement, etc., led to the discovery that there are many psychopaths out there.
These are people who are highly motivated by money or power, willing to take risks, view people as tools to be manipulated and used, and appear charming. Is it any wonder that bosses, politicians, and others are functional psychopaths?
But is someone truly a psychopath just because they have some of the traits?
Police and other public safety personnel tend to score high on the psychopathic deviancy scale on the MMPI (a standard psychological personality test), but not as high as the psychopathic criminals they must deal with.
I believe the inventory referred to in this article simply tests for psychopathic traits, or at least their appearance. Whether these folks are truly psychopathic would require far more in-depth investigation.
Some bosses are psychopaths. But some may simply act that way.
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
This system is bunk. Its used to screen teachers?
I've had some pretty crazy teachers in my day.. It obviously doesn't work.
My software dev team worked for Atilla-the-dumb once. The guy was so afraid of loosing the mid-management position he had clawed his way to that he spend much of his time getting the team to fight with each other so he could step in to save the day.
We found his resume on the network drive one day, submitted it to Monster, Dice, and a few others. Withn a month he was all excited about his "value" and took another job.
That's what we call a win-win.
Cogito Ergo Sum
As long as the professor doesn't bang his hottie students (while they're in his class) or doesn't plagiarise, he's golden.
I have seen professors deliberately delay the dissertation defence of students by years, just to keep them working on their projects. After having spent 5-6 years working on the dissertation, the student can't just get up and leave. He has to stick around kissing the arse of the professor, working 60-hour weeks for below minimum wage just to get the coveted signature some day.
People who have not experienced the academic world up close have abso-fucking-lutely no idea how bad it can get in there.
In American society, it seems like this kind of selfishness is a virtue Ayn Rand crap is increasingly becoming an accepted part of the culture. The crap that American is more successful because we have sociopaths running the government and corporations makes no sense. The Enrons and Haliburtons are draining our society and only bringing American down. Selfish politicians are killing the government.
People who subscribe to the philosophy that selfishness is a virtue need people who have a consciences to feed on. A world full of Ayn Rand sociopaths would not even be a place were Ayn Rand sociopaths want to live in.
I've actually worked with nice people in management positions. Even from the bad managers I've seen, the ways in which one can be "bad" at one's job are more diverse than being a psychopath or sociopath. Psychopaths do exist, they're not a majority.
Also, for a start, I don't think that berating someone is necessarily bad (much less a sign of being a psychopath). People make mistakes, or do something wrong, or whatever. _I_ make mistakes. I like to think a good manager would tell me when that's the case. (But don't blow it out of proportion, and don't forget the positive feedback too when/if that's deserved.)
I also don't think that "exploiting" someone is a crime. For better or worse, selling my work to a company is the way the economy works. A manager is there to manage and organize that process.
You can think of it as a necessary evil. Personally I don't even consider it "evil". If the boss is doing a good job of organizing things, that's less chaos for me to deal with, so that's actually improving my life.
And, anyway, if they do their job well, I see no problem with them earning a living out of that.
There _are_ ways to be an asshole about it, and yes I've seen awful assholes in management positions. But there are also ways of doing that job without being an asshole.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
There are many alternative explanations people have given in the past, most notably that psychopathy is a "disease of the mind". Which is just a neat way of saying, "we don't know, but take these pills". Kind of the same as calling it "posession by evil spirits".
The selection of inherited characteristics through selection is a mechanism that is subtle but powerful. I don't think using this tool to explain things gives anyone a bad name.
For figures, I'm sorry, but this is slashdot, not Scientific American. For predictions, ok, here are some. First, let's agree that we're discussing a set of related behaviours that range from the ability to lie well, to murder, and not a single identifiable behaviour:
- all human societies will have psychopaths.
- the relative male/female distribution of will be the same in most societies.
- in all societies, young boys who exhibit such behaviour will grow into men who exhibit the same behaviour, in similar proportions.
- in violent societies, there will be more psychopaths.
- in all societies, men will be more likely to adopt and learn psychopathic behaviour than women, given violent circumstances.
- in any society, the higher one goes up the power pyramid (political, military, business), the higher the percentage of psychopaths.
- in any society, you will find the most violent psychopaths in the military, and the most diplomatic psychopaths in the top levels of politics or management.
- all societies have soldiers, politicians, and managers.
- most soldiers, businessmen, and politicians are men.
etc. I could go on for ages but you get my drift. It's a complex genetic payload usually but not always triggered by environmental conditions, and overwhelmingly gender-linked to male genes.
My blog
One psychopath that I worked for was Barry Lewis. He would have screaming fits on the phone. After he refused to pay me for a month, he still wanted me to spend time working for him, when I told him that I'd gather what he wanted, once I received payment, he then started calling me about 20 times a day.
He was convicted of harassment. The ADA told me that Barry Lewis threatened him and some of the other employees of the court.
Fight Spammers!
I work as an R&D director in a medium size software company. Some time ago we hired a very promising director. She immediately became close friends with our managing director. At the time I didn't see anything wrong with it. But changes were about to come..
There was a well liked and very good technical worker in my team. Only problem was his appereance. The director couldn't stand the way he was. He was fat, quiet and wore an old sweatsuit all the time. Technical guy was very content with his appearance and felt no reason to make any changes.
Just in few months she succeeded to turn the whole management board againts this guy. He suddenly became a lazy and unreliable worker, who created a bad athmosphere to the whole office. When I found about the claims, it was too late. I tried to stand up for him, but couldn't defend him. The director was too cunning and I was too naive -- although I'm not anymore.
That wasn't the only trick the she pulled, but it was last one againts me. I found out that only way to avoid those tricks was not to talk to her at all.
I don't want to make this story long by telling about the ways she acted or methods she used. You propably can image them anyway. It's all charm, but totally hollow.
Problem is that the director still works in our company. I have no tools to fight againts a psychopath and I don't want to risk my position by showing it what I truly think. To psychopath its all black and white, if you're not on their side, you're an enemy.
If you have any ideas, please let me know.
The truth is that we all possess the innate ability to suppress normal social behaviors and to engage in violence under "necessary" conditions. That is a proven survival trait. It is the basis of military training. However the psychopath may be miswired to suppress social behaviors too easily, or all the time.
No, they wouldn't, and since I do this kind of thing EVERY day, I have some experience.
More importantly, I suggested it as a MISDIAGNOSIS, which it could very easily be.
Linking to indicatiors has no bearing on how a patient presents, and if you had any experience, you'd know patients often intentionally hide their symptoms, leading to EXACTLY SUCH MISDIAGNOSES.
Also, if you knew anything about personality disorders, you'd realize that professionals are loathe to diagnose more than one at a time.
"if women were truly psychopathic, they would be diagnosed as such alongside the diagnosis of BPD"
This is just WRONG. Again, symptoms (especially in BPD and PPD) are INTENTIONALLY MASKED. I've seen many competent professionals fooled. Suggesting that they would figure out the correct diagnosis and apply it is incredibly naive.
I believe your rudimentary understanding of personality disorders could use some polishing.
A corporation must become psychopathic once it reaches a certain size (defined by number of investors, and not the same for every company). Look at it this way: A sole proprietorship is answerable to only one person, so it will act according to that person's ethics. A publically-traded company has a practically infinite number of investors, and is answerable to them all. The only common factor amongst them will be a desire to make money.
Compensation and employment practices also contribute. Because executives are compensated largely in stock options, their personal interest lies in keeping the stock price increasing, which (because of the way stocks are priced) means keeping the profit growth rate increasing constantly. Also, since executives are "disposable" employees like you and me, they have no incentive for the company to be healthy in the long term (as they would if, say, they were going to retire and draw a pension).
This short-term thinking leads to companies putting next quarter's profit numbers above all else (including the long-term survival of the company). It's obviously not good for a company to destroy the society of which it is a part (and which supplies it with customers), but they are trying, because it's good in the short term.
Many think this is a Good Thing, because free-market capitalism has been shown to lead to good GDP growth (leading to more wealth available to all), and any profits the company is making get put back into the economy in the form of returns to shareholders (which theoretically anyone can be). I don't personally buy it, because it also leads to concentration of wealth, and "tragedy of the commons" damage to society due to externalities.
A reductio in absurdum example:
Suppose through (bought) legislation, or some other means, a company found a way to charge everybody in the country a recurring charge every month, while providing no service at all. This is the Holy Grail of corporate America; every company that could do this would be required to, in orcer to keep the stock price up. This would lead to the company essentially being a parasite on the economy; a large enough parasite could bleed the economy dry.
Googles founders are not narcisists or psychopaths and they are doing just fine in competition with Microsoft.
A psychopath definately should not be boss, not because they run the company bad fiscally, but because they run the country into the ground to make the company successful. Having a narcisist is not much better if you want a clean environment and good health.
Do you think food companies give a damn about our health? They want us to have cancer and heart disease because its profitable. Do you think the government cares about our health? They want healthcare prices to rise above our limits and they dont want you getting drugs from Canada. DO you think doctors care about our health? They want to just sell the drugs the drug companies bribe them to sell.
Psychopaths are EVERYWHERE and unless we create some ethical standards for certain positions or even for getting certain degrees in college its not going to stop. If everyone who wants a masters degree or who wants to be a boss has to pass a psychological screening in the same way we have to pass a drug test I don't think there would be a problem. If we don't do this, then expect our bosses to destroy the world for profit because psychopaths do not care about the world, you do.
I'm an ENTx on the Meyer's brigs personality survey. They puts me dead smack in between Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. I find that I almost never regret an action I took, even if things went badly. There are times though when my motives weren't all that pure, and those are the types of things that nag my conciounce. And I feel bad about the actions even if things went right in the end.
Folks like the person in your example lack a moral compass. They live only for themselves, and you are right, they are absolutely destructive in a position of authority. However, it you aren't careful about the adjectives you use to describe them your filter will net self-motivated individuals who ARE constructive in authority.
I have no idea how to measure one's moral compass. I take it for granted that I have one. Some of the things that are good and evil don't make sense logically. That's probably why I'm more comfortable saying I'm a Taoist than a Christian. Christ himself was probabably a Taoist, but nobody studies what he actually said. Most sermons I've heard focus on the writing of Paul (a moralist) and/or the old Testiment where God literally spelled out what was good and bad for you.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
mean, can't the shareholders see value in the company doing things right for the surrounding society (including the shareholders) even for less profit?
You might think that, and in the classical model of a conscientious investor funding a well-managed company, you'd be entirely right. But that's not how things work. Today's investors don't care. Greed is good, didn't you hear? They see the stock market as a get-rich-quick scheme--some kind of lucky lotto for already-affluent people. The only difference from the real estate crap you see on infomercials is that it actually works.
Buy low. Sell high. It doesn't matter what. It doesn't even matter if they offer a valid product or service! Look at SCO, for instance: how else do you explain the rise in stock value time after time (or should I say press-release after press-release)?
Some investors have even resorted to what they call "algorithmic trading". This type of trading is completely automated and exploits periodic fluctuations in the market to *automagically* generate money. They do this by making micro-investments across a broad range of stocks that are then sold shortly after. With a proper statistics model, most of the chosen stocks rise before being sold... profit. Of course, in reality, the money came from somewhere, and the investor didn't actually provide any liquidable capital by any common sense of the word (I'm told that some of these transactions take place in milliseconds.) Moreover, the statistics model won't care about the ethics of a particular stocks business practices. But, again, such things matter not, because they are, of course, secondary to the Almighty Dollar.
So with investors concerned only with short-term gains, should it be surprising that companies do the same? We often mock the business paradigm of "expansion or death", because, in a sane world, it would make sense that a business can still turn the same profit it made last year and everything would be fine. And yet, we're wrong. Expansion is required in today's businesses because that's what brings in today's investors--not playing nice and most certainly not doing the right thing.
The whole system is rotten to the core. The one control (prudent, conscientious investors) has disappeared. It's no wonder incidents like Enron and Worldcom happen. Eventually, the whole system will fail--it's inevitable.
-Grym
"People are, by and large, lazy and ungrateful shits." Right, that's Theory X. Fortunately, there is also a Theory Y
Carl Sandburg once wrote:
Drove up a newcomer in a covered wagon: 'What kind of folks live around here?' 'Well, stranger, what kind of folks was there in the country you come from?' 'Well, they was mostly a lowdown, lying, thieving gossiping, backbiting kind lot of people.' 'Well, I guess, stranger, that's about the kind of folks you'll find around here.' And the dusty gray stranger had just about blended into the dusty gray cottonwoods in a clump on the horizon when another newcomer drove up: 'What kind of folks live around here?' 'Well, stranger, what kind of folks was there in the country you come from?' 'Well, they was mostly a decent, hardworking, lawabiding, friendly lot of people.' 'Well, I guess, stranger, that's about the kind of folks you'll find around here.'"
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
document on the Company comptroller's desk and since I can read upside down, I looked up at him and announced that I was quitting, effective immediately.
It was an announcement that we were to be saddled with a new head of IT who was getting the job because he sold us a bill of goods, had gotten us into a mess in the first place, (I knew he was the nephew of some muckity-muck at [censored]) and that he was starting on Monday.
I left that afternoon, with a letter of recommendation, (I was friends with the head of HR, only back then it was called payroll,) found a job that afternoon, and never looked back.
He didn't want the job and upon arriving he fired everybody, from the chief analyst who was a pleasant enough co-worker, to the data entry clerks.
I was already working for somebody else but all of the other employees weren't so lucky.
Sometimes the boss is a 'bungie cord' boss who gets parachuted in on you and when neither him nor you want him there, the results are just awful.
He was an idiot, an arrogant prick, a blow-hard, a bad manager, an incompetent and he was 'forced' into the job because he'd bankruped his own company so he had nothing better and the Corporate big-wig who'd made the mistake of buying his crap in the first place just couldn't admit it.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Really? Even in the case where they bombed a restaurant because they thought Sadam was there? The odds that they'd hit Sadam were not that great, and they were virtually certain to hit someone innocent.
In what way is this not `deliberately putting innocent citizens in harm's way'? Because they didn't think of the consequences? At a certain point stupidity is no longer an excuse.