Corporate Psychopaths or Psychopathy in Companies.

They account for 1-4% of the general population. In Croatia, this ranges from 37,000 to 148,000 people. We often associate them with Hannibal Lecter, whom we remember as an incredibly intelligent and culturally sophisticated serial killer. Or Patrick Bateman, a successful businessman who practiced his dark side as a serial killer, and through “American Psycho,” we explore his decadence and brutal crimes. However, what we don't know or forget is that serial killers are extremely rare.

The assumption is that they also work in modern companies or organizations and are successful according to most standard measures of career success. Their destructive personality traits are invisible to most people they interact with. In fact, people can be enthusiastic about them, and they are often praised. They are able to bypass, and sometimes even hijack, succession planning and performance management systems to legitimize their behavior. They often exploit a major problem in companies: a communication problem. They will very easily find loopholes in organizational systems or processes. They will always, but always, exploit deteriorated interpersonal relationships and conflicts. They will often abuse colleagues, playing with moral scales, raising and lowering them as it suits them.

They are excellent at impression management and often display traits and behaviors that their audience will interpret as exceptional success. They are extroverted, socially confident, visionary, and often charismatic. They will also be accompanied by external signs such as expensive clothing, fashionable hairstyles… generally, they tend to make an exceptional first impression, which will enable them to enter companies and high-level positions.

However, as time passes, the perception of these individuals becomes increasingly negative (Paulhus, 1998), and it is often too late to do anything about it (Babiak & Hare, 2006; Babiak, Neumann, & Hare, 2010). Babiak et al. (2010).

The problem for us recruiters, or HR professionals, is their unique personality that coexists very, very, very well with well-developed social skills that tend to leave a positive impression on others, overshadowing negative and sometimes dysfunctional performance.

I believe you have long suspected, we are talking about psychopaths.

Unfortunately, recruiters do not use tools and techniques that could help avoid hiring and retaining such individuals. The funniest part of the whole story, according to Buckley, Norris, and Weise (2000), is that the most commonly used selection tool (for such individuals) is the unstructured interview.

With this, we leave our brains with the possibility of making hiring decisions based on our intuition.

However, myths and Hollywood stories cause us problems here, and we still, miraculously, believe that opposites attract. And because we haven't heard of homophily (no, not hemophilia). Homophily is more of a sociological than a psychological concept, referring to an individual's tendency to associate with those similar to themselves. More than 100 studies that observed homophily in some form found that similarity creates a bond. Homophily occurs in various forms, including age, gender, social class, and organizational role.

Due to believing Hollywood stories and not knowing about homophily, people don't believe me when I say you can't recognize what you don't 'carry' within yourself in another person. The same goes for psychopathy. And that's why we make mistakes.

“Good people rarely suspect that there are others, bad people, capable of things they could not even imagine.” (Robert Hare, Without Conscience, 2003)

Variola vera

Older generations will remember the film “Variola vera.” “Variola vera” is a 1982 Yugoslavian film directed by Goran Marković. The film deals with a real event from 1972 when a smallpox epidemic broke out in Belgrade. The plot follows the efforts of health workers, the army, and the government in suppressing the epidemic. I watched that film several times, but mostly because of my mother's story, who, as a healthcare professional, was vaccinated while carrying me. The side effects of the vaccine included newborn malformations. I survived both the vaccination and “Variola vera,” so let's start from the beginning :)

Smallpox, also known as variola, was a serious and deadly infectious disease caused by the variola virus. Symptoms included fever, a rash all over the body that developed into red blisters (vesicles) which later turned into pustules, high temperature, headache, and general weakness. The mortality rate could reach up to 30%. The virus spread through respiratory droplets or direct contact with skin lesions (wounds, ruptured pustules).

Thanks to mass vaccination programs and global efforts, smallpox was eradicated from the world population in 1980. In our former country, the last cases were recorded in the 1970s. The discovery of the smallpox vaccine is credited to the English physician Edward Jenner. Many consider him the father of immunology.

One detail was omitted in this whole story: Edward Jenner deliberately exposed a healthy person to the cowpox virus to test his smallpox vaccine.

This practice, though controversial and ethically highly questionable by today's standards, was crucial for the development of the first smallpox vaccine. Jenner observed that individuals who had previously suffered from cowpox did not develop smallpox after exposure to the variola virus.

From today's perspective, we could attribute manipulativeness to Edward Jenner, considering he created a kind of manipulation of another person's health and life. We could also add a lack of empathy for the health and well-being of another person, and ultimately, narcissism or Machiavellianism, given that ambition and achievement were placed above the well-being of others, or that the end justified the means. And these are all elements of the dark triad.

But is that really so? No, of course it's not. The context is different. Namely, historical context and ethical standards have changed significantly over time, and today's modern moral and ethical principles cannot simply be applied to people and events from the past. However, do people today respect modern moral and ethical principles?

This example, as an introduction, was merely meant to illustrate the complexity of diagnosing and understanding personality in the context of psychopathy or the dark triad.

What is psychopathy, and what constitutes the dark triad?

Psychopathy and the dark triad are two terms often used in psychology to describe certain personality characteristics and behavior patterns, although they have different concepts. We will revisit behavior patterns later in the context of assessing psychopathy during recruitment.

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a range of traits such as lack of empathy, immoral behavior, manipulation, impulsivity, low self-esteem, and a reduced capacity for guilt or remorse. Individuals with psychopathic traits may exhibit charm and superficial attractiveness but simultaneously struggle to maintain stable interpersonal relationships. Manipulating others for personal gain, a lack of responsibility, and antisocial tendencies are also common elements.

The Dark Triad is a conceptual (psychological) framework used to describe personality characteristics that include three traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy.

Diagnosis

The first term to explain is psychopathy. Also, the term sociopath or sociopathy is often associated with psychopathy.

The terms sociopathy and psychopathy are often used in popular culture and everyday language to describe certain characteristics or behavior patterns, but they are not official diagnostic terms.

Those accustomed to seeing what is written in the Diagnosis/Dg field on a doctor's report will not find psychopathy or its corresponding F code according to the ICD (International Classification of Diseases) listed.

Psychopathy is not found in the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Sociopathy is often linked to environment and traumatic childhood experiences, while psychopathy is frequently considered an inherent or genetic disorder, but either way, they both involve the development of antisocial traits.

And here we come to Antisocial Personality Disorder as the first “official diagnosis” according to DSM and ICD.

However, it is very important to say that someone diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD or ASPD) does not necessarily mean they are a psychopath. The difference between psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder is that the former includes personality traits such as lack of empathy, grandiosity, and lack of or shallow emotions, which are not required for an APD diagnosis.

Antisocial personality disorder represents a severe mental disorder characterized by a long-term pattern of disregard for the rights of others, disregard for social norms and moral standards, and impulsivity. Individuals with this disorder often exhibit a lack of empathy and remorse for their actions.

Since psychopathy is not an official diagnosis, we will more often find it mentioned in the context of forensic psychiatry.

There are many reasons why psychopathy is not a diagnosis. My personal opinion (and irrelevant here) is that it would be difficult for someone to decide to go to a general practitioner and then a psychiatrist with the statement: I think I am a psychopath and please help me :)

Psychopaths are very well aware that they are psychopaths, and they are perfectly fine with it :)

Beyond my (irrelevant) opinion, psychopathy is not a diagnosis for the following reasons:

• History and diagnostic changes: Psychopathy was initially included in the first two versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I and DSM-II). However, as the DSM evolved, there were changes in the conceptualization and diagnosis of personality disorders. In DSM-III, psychopathy was replaced with personality disorder with an emphasis on antisocial behavior.
• Conceptual imprecision: The terminology related to psychopathy was often unclear, and there was no consensus within the scientific community on how to precisely define this phenomenon. A lack of clear definition hindered classification and diagnosis.
• Overlap with other disorders: Psychopathy overlaps with other personality disorders, particularly antisocial personality disorder. Within DSM-5, antisocial personality disorder encompasses some of the characteristics previously attributed to psychopathy, including lack of empathy, disregard for societal norms, and impulsive behavior.
• Social and ethical concerns: There were social and ethical concerns regarding the stigmatization of individuals labeled as psychopaths. Some experts believe that the use of the term psychopathy could lead to unnecessary stigmatization, given the negative connotations the term carries.

Assessment of Psychopathy

The fact that, at least for now, psychopathy is not a diagnosis, actually makes life easier for HR professionals. Namely, the Medical Practice Act (NN 121/03 and 117/08) clearly stipulates who is authorized to deal with medical diagnoses. Also, regarding medical diagnoses, GDPR is very specific. Because, when it comes to data collection, according to GDPR (35), personal data relating to health includes all data relating to the health status of the data subject, revealing information about the past, present, or future physical or mental health status of the data subject, such collections are not allowed.

For this reason, we can quite comfortably observe psychopathy through “behavioral patterns” and measure them psychometrically as such. Additionally, it can be correlated with already validated, valid, and standardized psychometric instruments.

The current international standard for psychopathy assessment is the PCL-R. However, although it is widely used in clinical and forensic settings, its application in organizational psychology is very limited (see Babiak, 1995, and Babiak et al.).

When we look at the questions in the text below, it will become clear why this is the case.

Examples of questions:

• Lies before truth

0 – Not applicable 1 – Partially applicable 2 – Fully applicable

• Willingness to exploit others

0 – Not applicable 1 – Partially applicable 2 – Fully applicable

• Promiscuous sexual life

0 – Not applicable 1 – Partially applicable 2 – Fully applicable

• Disregard for laws and societal norms

0 – Not applicable 1 – Partially applicable 2 – Fully applicable

Since most measures of psychopathy within the PCL-R include items related to sexual behavior, antisocial and criminal activities, and drug use, it is unlikely that such questions can be used in organizational settings. Additionally, questions about a candidate's personal life are illegal in many countries.

Additionally, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), which made headlines in our country during attempts to diagnose/check for PTSD in veterans, is also not a good method for assessing psychopathy, as it could be interpreted as a medical examination before employment.

And finally, a common problem with all questions/measures/instruments in psychopathology assessment is the construction of self-report questions.

Therefore, psychometric tests used in recruitment must be appropriate for such an environment and designed for business contexts.

An example of psychopathy assessment in a business environment is the Business-Scan 360 (Babiak & Hare, 2013), which assesses psychopathic features in the workplace. The B-Scan has two versions: a self-report version (B-Scan Self) and a measure that assesses psychopathic traits in others (B-Scan 360). Previous validation studies of the B-Scan show that it consists of four factors corresponding to Hare's four-factor model of psychopathy (Mathieu et al., 2013; Mathieu & Babiak, 2016; Mathieu, Neumann, Babiak, & Hare, 2015).

Structured Behavioral Interview

The use of structured interviews increases the validity of the selection process (McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994). Yet, Buckley et al. (2000) reported that the most commonly used employee selection tool is the unstructured interview, essentially a casual conversation about a candidate’s experiences and future goals. One reported reason why recruiters do not use structured interviews or psychometric testing is their belief in their own “expertise” in making intuitive judgments about a potential candidate’s job-relevant knowledge, skills, abilities, and personality (Highhouse, 2008). Unfortunately, as Highhouse (2008) reports, extensive experience in conducting unstructured job interviews does not improve employee selection decisions.

Structured interviews, unlike unstructured interviews, consist of a set of competencies identified as essential job requirements for a particular position. The recruiter assesses each competence by recording the candidate's answers to behavioral questions. At the end of the interview, the interviewer uses standardized scales to score the candidate for each competence. The use of behaviorally structured interviews can help mitigate biases mentioned at the beginning of this text, including the influence of extraversion and charisma on the assessment of other elements such as creativity, innovativeness, and, of course, leadership. Although extraversion and sociability can be important for a particular job, they should not affect the candidate's scores on other competencies. Furthermore, the interview should certainly include situational assessments of the candidate's empathy.

Behavioral Universal Beauty

Now things are getting even more interesting, as research on employee selection shows that recruiters' assessment of candidates during the selection process is positively influenced by the candidate's appearance and the use of impression management tactics (Ellis, West, Ryan, & DeShon, 2002; Higgins & Judge, 2004; Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004; Peeters & Lievens, 2006). What is it all about?

The behavioral approach to universal beauty is typically based on observed patterns of human behavior and reactions to specific visual stimuli. Behaviorally, universal beauty refers to the idea that there are certain visual elements or characteristics that are attractive to most people, regardless of cultural or social differences. In translation, some people are simply 'universally beautiful'.

A meta-analysis of multiple studies that tested the biased effect of physical attractiveness on job outcomes found that attractive individuals fared better than less attractive individuals in terms of job-related outcomes such as hiring, promotion, and predictions of future success (Hosoda, Stone-Romero, & Coats, 2003).

Interestingly, the attractiveness bias emerged regardless of the presence of job-relevant information. The authors also found that HR professionals, just like students, were equally susceptible to attractiveness bias when making hiring decisions (Hosoda et al., 2003).

Holtzman and Strube (2013), in a study on attractiveness, found that all individuals from the dark triad tend to manipulate their appearance to seem more attractive.

In fact, they found a positive relationship between all three personalities in the dark triad (psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism) and self-enhancement (strategically manipulating one's appearance to become more physically attractive).

The bias of physical attractiveness in employee selection settings lies in the perceived connection between attractiveness and positive outcomes, i.e., the potential for success. For example, two meta-analyses showed that physical attractiveness is associated with positive perceptions of social competence, social skills, and intellectual competence (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991; Feingold, 1992), each of which is important in identifying and selecting candidates for employment and promotion.

And finally, in a study on the perception of intelligence, Borkenau and Liebler (1995) found that attractiveness, refined appearance, fashionable clothing, a confident facial expression, and frequent eye contact are associated with recruiters' perception of high intelligence.

In other words, if you want to be perceived as smart, look people in the eyes :)

Corporate Psychopathy and Performance Appraisal, or the Judge You are Judging

Several scholars have noted that it is difficult to assess “bad behavior” in executives because their job descriptions are highly complex and very difficult to quantify (Babiak & Hare, 2006, 2019; Shapiro & Von Glinow, 2007). The more complex the job, the less clear it is whether the executive is responsible for performance failures. Furthermore, since superiors and managers (people in power) can, and often do, make decisions about hiring, firing, salaries, and rewards, subordinates often hesitate to report their superior's bad behavior to upper management.

In fact, Shapiro and Von Glinow (2007) suggest that “coercive power” by executives increases the likelihood of silence when it comes to reporting their wrongdoing (intentional or not).

One common bias that often affects performance appraisal is the halo effect, where a single positive (or negative) trait of an individual overshadows and influences the assessment of other, more negative (or positive) traits, thus leading the “appraiser” to make a global, holistic assessment of the employee instead of analyzing and comparing/contrasting specific traits independently.

Babiak (1995) noted that psychopathic individuals in the workplace begin their manipulation of organizations by building one-on-one relationships with powerful and useful individuals, and eventually use these powerful individuals within the organization as “patrons” who will protect and defend them when they run into trouble. Through manipulation, they create a positive image and manage to gain the trust and support of key players in companies while spreading misinformation (typical disparaging information) about others to accelerate and/or advance their careers (Babiak, 1995, 2016; Babiak & Hare, 2006, 2019).

Park, Westphal, and Stern (2011) tested the impact of flattery on CEO decision-making and found that high levels of flattery and opinion conformity can increase CEOs' overconfidence in their strategic judgment and leadership ability, resulting in biased strategic decision-making.

While individuals with dark personalities may initially be seen as leaders and consequently promoted to leadership positions, their actual effectiveness as leaders often fails to live up to early promises and can lead to disappointing outcomes.

A meta-analysis of the BIG5 model and job performance found that the best predictor of job performance is a high level of employee conscientiousness (Salgado, 2003).

Culture Fit and Psychopathy

This is not an article about corporate culture, so briefly.

Corporate culture refers to a set of shared values, norms, beliefs, and practices within a company. It is an invisible, yet powerful, framework that shapes how employees understand and behave within the company. Corporate culture can affect everything from work ethic to interpersonal relationships and plays a key role in shaping an organization's identity and success.

Associated with corporate culture is the term corporate culture fit. Corporate culture fit refers to an individual's ability to integrate or adapt to the corporate culture of a specific company. This means that the person shares the organization's values, norms, and goals, and behaves in accordance with the expectations and tone set within that culture. Employers often seek a “fit” to ensure that employees contribute to a positive work environment and support the company's common goals.

Job advertisements often feature “dynamic and challenging environments,” which, of course, will provoke a smirk from future employees, as it can (or usually does) hide disorganization. However, some companies genuinely are dynamic and challenging environments. Unfortunately, their corporate culture can also be like that. Such companies can easily satisfy the parasitic-predatory motives of psychopaths.

Some companies may promote values such as high profitability and fast-paced, competitive environments, and want to hire individuals who share these profit-oriented values. However, they may not be prepared (or even aware) of other traits and characteristics that are part of the “package” of dynamic individuals, such as aggression towards others, the potential for company fraud, and unethical business practices. Many companies, striving to maintain their competitiveness, want to hire “shark” type employees and leaders who will be aggressive toward competitors and who are witty and charming/charismatic enough to attract clients. They want someone who would be willing and able to “bend the rules” if it means securing/acquiring/closing more contracts or business.

Furthermore, the same company will expect such employees to be courteous to their colleagues and to demonstrate highly ethical behavior towards the company itself. This is a case of “organizational bad boy syndrome,” but it is impossible to have both; sometimes bad boys are just bad.

Companies face such problems during and after mergers, when multiple companies combine, ownership structures change, reorganizations occur, internationalization, etc.

When discussing bad boys, an interesting question arose during research: do business schools attract people with dark personalities?

This question has been explored in studies that found business students score higher on narcissism than students in other university departments (Robak, Chiffriller, & Zappone, 2007; Westerman et al., 2011).

These results suggest that business schools may attract dark personalities, likely individuals who view the business world as a perfect environment for gaining power, money, and fame.

That does not mean that business schools are to blame, as they are the ones who teach future employees the skills needed to be effective leaders and succeed in their future careers.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the study of corporate psychopaths and psychopathy in business environments represents a challenging and complex topic that requires a multidisciplinary approach. Although popular culture often associates psychopaths with stereotypical characters like Hannibal Lecter or Patrick Bateman, the reality is more subtle, with many psychopaths successfully operating in all business spheres.

The prevalence of psychopathic traits in the population indicates the importance of recognizing these characteristics, especially in the context of employment. However, recognizing psychopathic traits can be challenging because psychopaths often exhibit superficial charm, extroversion, and other traits that can mask their destructive characteristics.

The aim was to highlight the importance of using structured interviews and psychometric tests in the selection process to suppress subjective judgments and increase objectivity in identifying psychopathic traits and, generally, in making better employee selections. However, challenges in assessing psychopathy in business environments still exist, and the use of such tools must be carefully guided by ethical guidelines and legal regulations.

The study of the phenomenon of universal beauty in the context of recruitment further complicates candidate assessment because attractiveness can influence recruiters' subjective decisions. Understanding how attractiveness affects the assessment of intelligence or abilities can contribute to the development of fairer and more objective selection processes.

Ultimately, understanding the complexity of psychopathy in business environments requires continuous research, adherence to ethical guidelines, and adaptation of assessment methods to ensure fair and effective recruitment and the creation of healthy work environments.