1

Corporate Psychopaths: The Good, the Evil, and Organizational Differences

By Oleg Nekrassovski

Introduction

Corporate Psychopaths are often viewed as sinister masterminds dangerous to

organizations. Boddy, Ladyshewsky, and Galvin (2010) wrote, “Leaders without ethics in global

business: Corporate psychopaths” in order to provide a thorough overview of Corporate

Psychopaths, as well as present new empirical evidence in support of the view that Corporate

Psychopaths are overrepresented at senior levels of organizations. Kottke and Pelletier (2013)

wrote, “Measuring and differentiating perceptions of supervisor and top leader ethics” in order to

present the results of two studies that appraised the employees’ perceptions of the ethics of their

supervisors and top leaders. Finally, Bon (2012) wrote, “Examining the crossroads of law, ethics,

and education leadership” in order to provide a better understanding of the intersection of law

and ethics and its bearing on educational leaders, in particular. Together, these articles suggest

the characteristics of organizations that may be most attractive to Corporate Psychopaths; and

demonstrate that the presence of Corporate Psychopaths within organizations can have both

positive and negative effects on these organizations.

Corporate Psychopaths and Other Employees: The Good

Potential employees with psychopathic traits are more likely to be viewed favorably by

corporate recruiters, and once hired, by their supervisors and subordinates, than employees

without such traits. This facilitates their recruitment and promotion within organizations. In fact,

according to Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin (2010), corporations want employees that are

energetic, charming, and fast-moving; which happen to be common outward characteristics of

psychopaths. Moreover, psychopaths impress recruiters by presenting themselves as being with

good abilities, emotionally well-adjusted, reasonable, intelligent, successful, friendly, reliable,

trustworthy, loyal, and with healthy ambitions. Corporate Psychopaths rise within corporations

by skillfully integrating themselves with people; which often comes down to simply telling them

what they want to hear. In addition, high personal charm and persuasiveness allows Corporate

Psychopaths to convince senior managers to have confidence in them; while also helping them to

succeed at job promotion interviews. Moreover, Corporate Psychopaths display polished and

unemotional decisiveness; which makes them look like ideal leaders (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, &

Galvin, 2010).

Hence, psychopathic leaders should be expected to be admired more, trusted more,

inspire more confidence in, and experience more loyalty from their subordinates, than leaders

without psychopathic traits. And according to Kottke and Pelletier (2013), the confidence of

employees in the top leadership of their organization is highly important for organizational

success. In fact, the employees, who perceive the top leadership of their organization as

2

exercising complete guidance of the organization, are more likely to be innovate in their jobs,

show more commitment to the organization, and be less likely to quit (Kottke and Pelletier,

2013).

It is also valuable to note here, that according to Mahmut, Homewood, and Stevenson

(2007), the superior executive function, which is also characteristic of psychopaths, may reduce

the risk of their involvement in unethical or illegal behavior (as cited in Boddy, Ladyshewsky, &

Galvin, 2010). In addition, psychopaths, of primary psychopathic subtype, are characterized by

low emotional reactivity and a fundamental lack of anxiety (Zeier & Newman, 2013). And such

traits can be invaluable to organizational leaders on many occasions. For example, according to

Bon (2012), sound, ethical decision making, by organizational leaders, is often undermined by

pressures of legal compliance and fear of litigation. Similarly, lack of anxiety and low emotional

reactivity are traits which are greatly advantageous to organizational leaders who seek to practice

the ethic of critique; which aims at confronting and eliminating the discriminatory injustices,

which may be residing in the bureaucratic structures of organizations, through fundamental

transformation of organizations (Bon, 2012).

Corporate Psychopaths and Other Employees: The Evil

Ethics is the fundamental principles that guide leaders and inform their practice. Leaders

who lack, or disregard, sound ethical principles, may lack sufficient guidance for making good

decisions, especially in complex and high-stakes corporate environments (Bon, 2012). Hence,

good leaders are those who are able to recognize their ethical responsibilities towards others and

be able to discern the often-competing rights and interest of the people around them (Bon, 2012).

Unfortunately, the common traits of bad leaders, such as callous disregard for the wishes

and needs of other employees, and the willingness to lie, cheat, bully, and cause harm to, or

disregard, the welfare of others, are traits which are commonly associated with psychopathy

(Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010).

Hence, it is perhaps not surprising, that once in organizations, psychopaths tend to

identify supporters and opposition, and then eliminate opposition and rise to the top unopposed

(Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010). The supporters are identified and defined, by Corporate

Psychopaths, as those employees who can help them ascend to senior levels. While their

opponents are identified and defined as those who are willing and able to stop Corporate

Psychopaths from moving up the corporate ladder. And given the damage to the company and its

employees that results from the selfish methods the psychopaths tend to use in order to quickly

get promoted; the likes of auditors, security personnel, and human resources, usually fall on their

list of opponents (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010).

Once Corporate Psychopaths divide the organization’s employees, relevant to their cause,

into two camps, they start manipulating their way to the top, sacrificing some of their supporters

as necessary and/or shedding them when they’ve outlived their usefulness. By these methods,

3

Corporate Psychopaths usually manage to outmaneuver and eliminate all of their opponents, and

then comfortably rise to the top without opposition (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010).

Hence, organizations led by psychopathic leaders should be expected to consist,

especially in managerial positions, of people who are ‘naturally’ inclined to support

psychopathic leaders. And while no other characteristics of these people are known, and

therefore should be researched; it can be argued that managers, who are inclined to support a

psychopathic leader, generally receive a higher ethical rating from their subordinates, than

managers without such inclinations. After all, in Kottke and Pelletier’s (2013) study the

employees of the organization that endured public scandal rated their immediate supervisors as

more ethical, than did the employees from the ‘control’ sample of organizations. And it is seems

clear that the fact, that these organizations were scandal-ridden, suggests that they were led by

psychopaths who have managed to eliminate opposition long ago, leaving only their supporters

and people indifferent to their cause.

Corporate Psychopaths and Organizational Differences

Different organizations have different organizational climates. In fact, according to

Kottke and Pelletier (2013), organizational climate is nothing more than an individual,

psychological appraisal of the organization based on that individual’s needs and values. In other

words, it’s an individual impression of the organization. Now, as already described, Corporate

Psychopaths tend to need and value only self-promotion, regardless of the cost to the people

around them (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010). Hence, organizations which are, or at least

that are perceived by psychopathic individuals to be, more conductive to selfish self-promotion,

can be expected to attract a disproportionate number of psychopaths.

This may suggest that the organizations, in which employees give their immediate

supervisors an ethical rating higher than the industry’s average, are more attractive to

psychopaths and possibly more conductive to selfish self-promotion. This is because Kottke and

Pelletier’s (2013) study found that only employees of organizations that endured public scandal,

and hence were likely led by psychopaths (and, by extension, were more attractive to them, in

the first place), rated their immediate supervisors better, in terms of ethics, than did the

employees from the sample of organizations representative of the corporate average.

It is also valuable to note, in this respect, that various laws, policies, regulations, and

rules, both demand and limit certain actions by managers within organizations. However, these

laws, policies, regulations, and rules, don’t always mandate specific actions, and instead may

permit the exercise of discretion (Bon, 2012). Hence, there is a considerable degree of discretion

that organization’s managers of various ranks can exercise. And in such circumstances, managers

often have nothing beside their core ethical principles to guide their decisions (Bon, 2012).

Hence, given that the core ‘ethical’ principles of Corporate Psychopaths, tend to be self-

promotion at any cost; Corporate Psychopaths can be expected to be attracted the most to

organizations which are, or at least that are perceived by them to be, subject to the fewest

4

possible number of laws, policies, regulations, and rules, and hence, allow the greatest exercise

of discretion to their employees.

Conclusion

Thus, we have seen that the presence of Corporate Psychopaths within organizations can

have both positive and negative effects on these organizations. Moreover, it can be argued that

managers, who are inclined to support a psychopathic leader, generally receive a higher ethical

rating from their subordinates, than managers without such inclinations.

In addition, we have seen that organizations which are, or at least that are perceived by

psychopathic individuals to be, more conductive to selfish self-promotion, can be expected to

attract a disproportionate number of psychopaths. In particular, Corporate Psychopaths can be

expected to be attracted the most to organizations which are, or at least that are perceived by

them to be, subject to the fewest possible number of laws, policies, regulations, and rules, and

hence, allow the greatest exercise of discretion to their employees. Moreover, there is a

possibility that the organizations, in which employees give their immediate supervisors an ethical

rating higher than the industry’s average, are also more attractive to psychopaths and possibly

more conductive to selfish self-promotion.

We have also seen that Corporate Psychopaths have an ability to present themselves as

being with good abilities, emotionally well-adjusted, reasonable, intelligent, successful, friendly,

reliable, trustworthy, loyal, and with healthy ambitions. In addition, they act like ideal leaders

and have high personal charm and persuasiveness, which inspires confidence in them. Moreover,

they tend to possess high executive function, low emotional reactivity, and lack of anxiety.

On the other hand, Corporate Psychopaths, tend to possess the traits of bad leaders, such

as callous disregard for the wishes and needs of other employees, and the willingness to lie,

cheat, bully, and cause harm to, or disregard, the welfare of others.

It would be important to conduct further research on psychopaths’ perception of

organizations; given that organizations that are perceived by psychopathic individuals to be more

conductive to selfish self-promotion, especially those organizations that are perceived by them to

be subject to the fewest possible number of laws, policies, regulations, and rules, likely attract a

disproportionate number of psychopaths.

Finally, it would be important to conduct further research on the characteristics of people

that are ‘naturally’ inclined to support Corporate Psychopaths; given that the information on the

characteristics of such people largely doesn’t exist, and seems limited to the idea, presented in

this paper, that managers, who are inclined to support a psychopathic leader, generally receive a

higher ethical rating from their subordinates, than managers without such inclinations.

5

References

Boddy, C. R. P., Ladyshewsky, R., & Galvin, P. (2010). Leaders without ethics in global

business: Corporate psychopaths. Journal of Public Affairs, 10(3), 121-138. doi:

10.1002/pa.352

Bon, S. C. (2012). Examining the crossroads of law, ethics, and education leadership. Journal of

School Leadership, 22(2), 285-308. Retrieved from

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&

db=ehh&AN=75499248&site=eds-live&scope=site

Kottke, J., & Pelletier, K. (2013). Measuring and differentiating perceptions of supervisor and

top leader ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 415-428. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-

1312-8

Mahmut, M. K., Homewood, J., Stevenson, R. J. (2007). The characteristics of non-criminals

with high psychopathy traits: Are they similar to criminal psychopaths? Journal of

Research in Personality, 42, 679–692. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.09.002

Zeier, J. D., & Newman, J. P. (2013). Feature-based attention and conflict monitoring in criminal

offenders: Interactive relations of psychopathy with anxiety and externalizing. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 122(3), 797-806. doi: 10.1037/a0033873