Psychopathy and Leadership

By Oleg Nekrassovski

Introduction

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a specific cluster of

behaviors and inferred personality traits, most of which are viewed negatively by society

(Hare, 1999). Psychopaths often ‘distinguish’ themselves as social predators, who use

charm, manipulation, and even violence to get what they want. They don’t feel guilt or

regret from hurting others or violating social norms. As a result, they often end up in

prison (Hare, 1999). All of this stems from the fact that psychopaths have a complete

lack of conscience and are incapable of empathy (Hare, 1999); as well as having low

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

their criminal and violent reputation, many psychopaths avoid violent and criminal

behavior, and instead favor working in leadership positions in legal organizations. These

Corporate Psychopaths are often viewed as sinister masterminds dangerous to

organizations (Babiak & Hare, 2006). However, the present paper will seek to show that

(1) despite their negative reputation, Corporate Psychopaths have many positive

leadership qualities, and that (2) psychopathy and its positive manifestations are

controversial topics which have been insufficiently explored, especially empirically.

Characteristics of Psychopathic Leaders

Despite their negative reputation, some authors argue that Corporate

Psychopaths have many positive leadership qualities. For example, a paper, written by

Lilienfeld et al. (2012), first gives a quick overview of psychopathy, psychopathic traits,

and various ways to assess them; and then provides an excellent overview of various

prior studies that argue for the socially beneficial value of many psychopathic traits,

especially in some occupations, including leadership positions. Lilienfeld et al. (2012)

empirically tested this idea by assessing 42 U.S. presidents for psychopathy and seeing

whether discovered psychopathic traits, among these presidents, correlate with various

measures of their success as leaders. In particular, Lilienfeld et al. (2012) measured the

personalities, a large variety of psychopathic personality traits, and job performance and

behavior in the 42 U.S. presidents; using a variety of questionnaires and rating tools, all

of which were completed by high-level experts on each of the U.S. presidents under

study. Data analysis was conducted using a variety of appropriate, complex quantitative

techniques. And the results were as numerous and diverse as the psychological and

behavioral qualities of the U.S. presidents that were measured. More narrowly,

however, Lilienfeld et al. (2012) found that especially boldness (an amalgam of

potentially adaptive traits, such as immunity to stress, emotional resilience,

venturesomeness, social poise, and charisma), associated with psychopathy, was

positively correlated with a host of indicators of good presidential leadership, such as

good Congressional relations, good crisis management skills, tendency to initiate new

projects, and being viewed as a figure of world-wide significance.

Others argue that employees with psychopathic traits are more likely to be

viewed favorably by their supervisors and subordinates, than employees without such

traits. In particular, psychopaths are good at presenting themselves as being with good

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

trustworthy, loyal, and with healthy ambitions (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010).

This helps Corporate Psychopaths to rise within corporations by skillfully integrating

themselves with people. In addition, high personal charm and persuasiveness allows

Corporate Psychopaths to convince senior managers to have confidence in them

(Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010).

In addition, Corporate Psychopaths display polished and unemotional

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

Galvin, 2010). Also, according to Mahmut, Homewood, and Stevenson (2007), this

superior executive function, characteristic of Corporate Psychopaths, may reduce the

risk of their involvement in unethical or illegal behavior. The roots of such traits are low

emotional reactivity and a fundamental lack of anxiety. In fact, a study by Zeier &

Newman (2013) starts off by noting that psychopaths, of a primary psychopathic

subtype, are characterized by low emotional reactivity and a fundamental lack of

anxiety. While the main purpose of this study was to address two questions. The first

question seeks to evaluate the generality of abnormal selective attention (i.e.

obliviousness to inhibitory information, which is peripheral to one’s current focus of

attention) demonstrated by primary psychopathic individuals. While its second question

seeks to explore the various analytical approaches to investigating psychopathy,

especially psychopathic subtypes. To answer these questions, Zeier and Newman

(2013) tested a total of 207 inmates (161 Caucasians, 42 African- Americans, three

Hispanics, and one multiracial) from a medium-security prison, on the modified flanker

task (for evaluating obliviousness to inhibitory information peripheral to one’s current

attention focus). However, participants who were younger than 18 or older than 45, had

a low intelligence score, were on psychotropic medications, had bipolar disorder or

psychosis, or produced extremely outlying scores during the test, were excluded. As

result, the final test sample consisted of 120 participants (Zeier & Newman, 2013). The

psychopathy of each participant was assessed using Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-

Revised (PCL-R); with 50 participants being judged to be non-psychopathic, 40 –

‘intermediately psychopathic,’ and 30 – fully psychopathic. The anxiety of participants

was measured using the Welsh Anxiety Scale, which led to 62 participants being

classified as low-anxious, and 58 as high-anxious. Finally, a brief form of the

Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) was completed by all participants

(Zeier & Newman, 2013). Zeier and Newman (2013) argue that while earlier studies

demonstrated obliviousness to spatial type of inhibitory information, peripheral to one’s

current attention focus, among primary psychopathic individuals; their study

demonstrates the generality of this selective attention abnormality, by demonstrating

that individuals with primary psychopathy are similarly oblivious to information which is

feature-based. Hence, Zeier and Newman (2013) conclude that, given that the main

“real-world” consequences of abnormal selective attention among psychopaths don’t

relate to spatial focus; their study helps to clarify this issue by demonstrating that the

disinhibited behavior, among psychopaths, reflects their failure to consider important

inhibitory, feature-based information (e.g., the possibility of getting punished or harmed)

after adopting a specific attentional set (e.g., an immediate focus on a specific goal).

An inability to consider important inhibitory, feature-based information (e.g., the

possibility of getting punished or harmed) after adopting a specific attentional set (e.g.,

an immediate focus on a specific goal), are traits which 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, such 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).

Relevant Characteristics of Effective Leaders

Studies describing effective leadership traits and styles, which may be

associated with psychopathic traits, are not hard to come by. For example, a study by

Van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt, and Alkema (2014) argues that leaders

who are believed to be effective and competent are more likely to be followed and

trusted. In addition, the presence of such leaders, in organizations, increases

organizational commitment and work engagement among their followers. Moreover,

leaders who show warmth, acceptance, and care to their followers, satisfy their

psychological need for relatedness. Finally, in times of uncertainty, for example, during

economic crises, people desire leaders who emphasize the needs of the organization

and act unconventionally and heroically (Van Dierendonck et al., 2014). More

specifically, however, Van Dierendonck et al. (2014) describe servant leadership (SL)

as a leadership style which involves (1) providing vision and acquiring trust and

credibility from one’s followers; (2) seeking to understand the abilities, potentials, goals,

needs, and desires of one’s followers, using one-on-one communication, so as to make

them perform at their best; and (3) focusing on developing one’s followers to the highest

potential, in areas such as task effectiveness, self-motivation, community stewardship,

and future leadership capabilities. In addition, Van Dierendonck et al. (2014) describe

transformational leadership (TFL) as a multidimensional style of leadership, which

includes (1) emphasizing the values and needs of the organization, over the values and

needs of the followers; (2) using rewards to create a greater focus on achieving high

outcomes; (3) serving as a motivating role model for one’s followers; and (4) putting

emphasis on one’s followers’ individual development.

When it comes to the details of the research conducted for Van Dierendonck et

al.’s (2014) paper; it becomes clear that the purpose of this research was to explore

various mediating mechanisms through which TFL and SL affect followers. These

mechanisms were explored through three studies. The first study focused on exploring

the different influence of SL and TFL on organizational commitment, through the

mediating mechanisms of leadership effectiveness and need satisfaction. It involved a

paper-and-pencil test which asked the participants to imagine being in given scenarios

of working under a leader of a company with the specified qualities. Environmental

uncertainty and leadership style were manipulated in the presented scenarios; and then

the extent to which the participants attributed leadership effectiveness, satisfaction of

followers’ needs, and commitment to the company, to these hypothetical leaders, were

measured (Van Dierendonck et al., 2014). 184 people, from the network of one of the

authors, constituted the participants of this study. 85 were males. 83 were females. The

gender of the rest (16) was unknown. The mean age was 37 years. The results of this

first study suggest that leaders who demonstrate TFL are perceived as being more

effective; while the leaders who demonstrate SL are perceived as being more capable

at fulfilling the needs of their followers (Van Dierendonck et al., 2014). The second study

compared TFL and SL to one another and to transactional and laissez-faire leadership.

200 hospital employees (mostly doctors and nurses) constituted the participants of this

study. 51 were males. 149 were females. The mean age was 39.6 years. All participants

had worked under a leader before. The data was gathered using a paper-and-pencil test

similar to the one used in the first study. The results of this second study showed that

when it comes to the satisfaction of psychological needs, perceived leadership

effectiveness, and work engagement; both TFL and SL have a greater overall influence

than laissez-faire leadership (Van Dierendonck et al., 2014). The objective of the third

study was to explore the extent to which TFL and SL are related to work engagement

and organizational commitment, through the mediating mechanisms of need satisfaction

and leadership effectiveness. 200 support staff of a major university constituted the

participants of this study. 116 were males. 84 were females. The mean age was 42.18

years. The data was gathered using a cross-sectional self-report survey. And this third

study found that SL is most strongly related to need satisfaction, while TFL is most

strongly related to perceived leadership effectiveness (Van Dierendonck et al., 2014).

Similarly, Kottke and Pelletier (2013) conducted two studies in order to illustrate

that it is possible to differentiate the employees’ perceptions of ethics of their immediate

supervisors, from their perceptions of ethics of top leadership of their organizations; and

also to show that such differentiation has important implications for organizations. In

both studies, perceptions of both immediate supervisor and top leadership ethics were

assessed using the Perceptions of Ethical Leadership Scale (PELS). The PELS is a 10-

item survey that asks respondents to rate their leader’s behavior. In Study 1, one

thousand employees were randomly chosen from the 18,000 that worked for one

government agency of a county in Southern California. The response rate was 42.5%.

62.2% of respondents were women. The average age of respondents was 45 years;

while they have been employed with this agency for an average of 9.5 years, with a

standard deviation of 8.5 years. The appropriate analysis of collected data showed that

the items constituting the PELS can be categorized meaningfully and statistically into

perceptions of the ethics of immediate supervisors and top leadership.

Study 2 was more noteworthy, in no small part because it started with an

extensive literature review and various hypotheses regarding various aspects of

organizational leadership. In particular, Kottke and Pelletier (2013) noted that 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 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. As a result, the authors hypothesized that employees’ level of confidence

in the top leadership of their organization would strongly correlate with their perceptions

of the level of ethical behavior exhibited by their top leaders. While the correlation

between confidence in top leadership and the perceived ethics of immediate

supervisors was predicted to be modest. Kottke and Pelletier (2013) also noted that

employee commitment decreases and their turnover increases whenever there is a

conflict between the ethical values of employees and perceived ethical values of their

immediate supervisors and top management. As a result, the authors hypothesized that

employees will be more likely to feel attached to and identify with their organizations

whenever they see their immediate supervisors and top leaders as ethical.

Study 2 participants consisted of employees from a variety of organizations, who

were recruited through snowball sampling and some other unspecified methods. A total

of 371 surveys were returned to the researchers. 69% of respondents were women;

while the respondents’ tenure, company and department size, and industry type were

quite variable. 70 participants were rejected, because they worked for their current

organization for less than one year (Kottke & Pelletier, 2013). Because Study 2 sought

to find relationships among a larger variety of organizational leadership variables than

Study 1, the measurement instruments it employed were not limited to PELS. In

particular, in addition to PELS, it used the Organizational Climate Scale to measure the

participants’ perception of the climate of their organizations; as well as the Top

Leadership Direction Scale to assess participants’ confidence in the direction provided

by their top management. Finally, Study 2 used the Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Scale to measure the degree to which employees ‘go above and beyond the call of duty’

in the course of their jobs; and the Organization Commitment Scale to measure

organizational commitment (Kottke & Pelletier, 2013). Data analysis demonstrated

strong correlation between perception of leadership, at both organizational levels, as

being ethical, and the perception of ethical climate in organizations. A strong, positive

correlation was also found between higher ratings of top leaders on ethical behavior and

ratings of their ability to set good directions for the organization; as well as between

higher ratings of leadership ethics, at both levels, and higher organizational commitment

of respondents. Finally, Study 2 found that employees who viewed their top leaders and

immediate supervisors as ethical, were more willing to ‘go above and beyond the call of

duty’ at work (Kottke & Pelletier, 2013).

Measuring Corporate Psychopathy

A number of instruments for measuring corporate psychopathy are in existence.

For example, a study by Mathieu, Hare, Jones, Babiak, and Neumann (2013), sought to

develop a new tool for measuring corporate psychopathy. It starts by noting that the

Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), the ‘‘gold standard’’ measure of psychopathy

in clinical settings, can be modeled in terms of four strongly correlated unidimensional

factors. These four factors are Interpersonal (Superficial, Grandiose, Deceitful),

Affective (Lacks remorse, Lacks empathy, Doesn’t accept responsibility for actions),

Lifestyle (Impulsive, Lacks realistic goals, Irresponsible), and Antisocial (Poor

behavioral controls, Adolescent antisocial behavior, Adult antisocial behavior) (Mathieu

et al., 2013). Despite the PCL-R’s clear focus on ‘negative’ traits and behaviors in

forensic and clinical populations, Mathieu et al. (2013) go on to cite and summarize an

earlier empirical study of Corporate Psychopaths, using the PCL-R, which was

conducted by three of the authors of this article, and which found that the PCL-R—

particularly its interpersonal component—was positively associated with in-house

ratings of Charisma/Presentation style (creativity, strategic thinking and communication

skills), in addition to a number of negative behaviors. However, the PCL-R was deemed

to be unsuitable for assessing psychopathy in business settings; in no small part

because it is designed for being administered by qualified clinicians. Therefore Mathieu

et al. (2013) note that two of its authors set out to develop an instrument specifically for

measuring psychopathy in business/corporate settings; which would be valid and

reliable despite using only lay people to assess psychopathic traits in other people that

they know. The result was the 113-item Business-Scan 360. Not surprisingly, given the

authors’ exclusively negative view of psychopaths, the 113-items of this new instrument

were based on a multitude of behaviors, attitudes, and judgments considered

problematic (by human resources personnel and industrial/organizational psychologists)

in corporate succession plans (Mathieu et al., 2013). Most of the rest of this study

describes the refinement of this new measurement instrument, in line with the four PCL-

based factors of psychopathy, outlined above, until it contained only 20 items; as well as

its testing, on broad samples of employees, which demonstrated its reliability and

validity (Mathieu et al., 2013).

A nearly identical group of authors have already used the Business-Scan 360 (B-

Scan 360) to explore the possible effect of psychopathic leaders on their followers. In

particular, Mathieu, Neumann, Hare, and Babiak (2014) used this instrument, for

measuring corporate psychopathy, to investigate the relationships between employees’

perceptions of psychopathic traits in their supervisors, employees’ job satisfaction,

work–family conflict, and general psychological distress. Mathieu et al. (2014), initially

hypothesized that higher ratings of supervisors, on B-Scan 360 (indicative of greater

psychopathy), by their employees, would be negatively associated with employee

reports of job satisfaction and positively associated with employee reports of work–

family conflict and psychological distress. This hypothesis was tested on two samples.

Sample 1 consisted of 116 (85%) of all employees of a single branch of a large

Canadian financial institution. Of these, 99 (86.1%) were women, 17 (13.9%) were men,

and 16 (2 men, 14 women) were managers. While Sample 2 consisted of 476 (92%) of

all employees of a public service organization. Of these, 175 (36.8%) were women, 301

(63.3%) were men, and 99 (23 women, 76 men) were managers (Mathieu et al., 2014).

The participants of this study rated their immediate supervisors on the 20 items of the B-

Scan 360. While the psychological wellbeing and job satisfaction of the participants was

measured using the General Health Questionnaire-12 and the Minnesota Satisfaction

Questionnaire, respectively. Finally, five, relevant items from the work–family conflict,

family–work conflict, and affective experiences questionnaire were used to measure the

influence of work on family life of the participants. Overall, the resultant correlations

between the studied variables were as initially predicted by the authors (Mathieu et al.,

2014).

However, the value of such results, with regards to the consequences of

psychopathic leadership is, at best, unclear; because the controversy regarding

appropriate ways to measure psychopathy, outside of forensic and clinical settings, is

not new. For example, Mahmut et al. (2007) note that the Psychopathy Checklist-

Revised (PCL-R), the ‘‘gold standard’’ measure of psychopathy in clinical settings, is

inappropriate for measuring/detecting psychopathy in non-clinical setting; in no small

part because PCL-R’s psychopathy construct does not parallel various

conceptualizations of non-criminal psychopaths. Hence, Mahmut et al. (2007) note three

commonly used measures of non-criminal psychopathy: Levenson’s Primary and

Secondary Psychopathy scales (LPSP), the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI)

and the Behavioral Activation/Inhibition System scales.

Similarly, Lilienfeld et al. (2015) note two recent meta-analyses which suggested

that the total or factor scores on the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL-R) are

largely unrelated to boldness (an amalgam of potentially adaptive traits, such as

immunity to stress, emotional resilience, venturesomeness, social poise, and charisma),

as assessed by the Fearless Dominance dimension of the Psychopathic Personality

Inventory (PPI). This immediately raised questions regarding the connection between

largely adaptive traits, such as boldness, and psychopathy. Still, Lilienfeld et al. (2015)

argue that since PCL was developed and validated on forensic populations, it likely

places less emphasis, than other instruments for measuring psychopathy, on adaptive

traits, such as emotional resilience, social poise, and fearlessness. As a result, Lilienfeld

et al. (2015) attempted to extend the mentioned meta-analytic findings by addressing a

key question which wasn’t explicitly examined by those studies, namely the relationship

between boldness and non-PCL-based measures of psychopathy. To do so, they meta-

analytically synthesized data relevant to exploring the relationship between boldness

(as measured by the PPI or the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure [TriPM]) with total

scores on various non-PCL-based measures of psychopathy. All obtainable studies,

both published and unpublished, that used both (1) the PPI or its variants or the TriPM,

all of which include measures of boldness, and (2) non-PCL-based measures of

psychopathy, were included by Lilienfeld et al. (2015) into their meta-analysis. In total,

their meta-analysis ended up including 32 independent samples, from 28 studies, which

together contained 10,693 participants. The overall results of this meta-analysis

demonstrated a large to medium average weighted correlation between (a) non-PCL-

based measures of psychopathy and (b) boldness.

Models of Psychopathy

Lilienfeld, Watts, and Smith’s (2015) study focuses on describing three models of

‘successful’ psychopathy; with a ‘successful’ psychopath being, in their estimation, a

socially successful individual who displays many of the core features of psychopathy.

Thus, the authors note that according to the differential-severity model, successful

psychopathy simply constitutes a mild expression of clinical psychopathy. This model

sees psychopathy as a unitary construct. Hence, psychopathy can only differ between

individuals in its intensity; with successful psychopaths being afflicted with a less

intense form of psychopathy, which is identical in kind to that which afflicts clinical

psychopaths. Similarly, the moderated-expression model also views psychopathy as a

unitary construct; with successful psychopathy being an atypical manifestation of clinical

psychopathy. In particular, this model sees successful psychopaths as ‘innately’ no

different from clinical psychopaths; but, in whom, the socially harmful manifestations of

psychopathy have been negated by protective factors (extraneous to psychopathy

itself), such as effective parenting, intelligence, or intact executive functioning (Lilienfeld,

Watts, and Smith, 2015). In contrast to the first two models, the differential-configuration

model views successful and clinical psychopathies as being two constellations of

different personality traits; with traits such as boldness (an amalgam of potentially

adaptive traits, such as immunity to stress, emotional resilience, venturesomeness,

social poise, and charisma) and conscientiousness being among those comprising

successful, but not clinical, psychopathy. Hence, instead of seeing a unitary construct,

this model views psychopathy as a number of distinct combinations of various different

psychological traits (Lilienfeld, Watts, and Smith, 2015). The authors also suggest that

the differential-configuration model is consistent with the triarchic model of psychopathy.

The triarchic model of psychopathy is described by Patrick and Drislane’s (2015)

study. In particular, the authors argue that psychopathy, which is collectively

represented in different assessment instruments, can be fully described by a single

model - the triarchic model of psychopathy – which proposes that psychopathy consists

of three intersecting, but distinct, symptomatic (phenotypic) constructs: boldness,

disinhibition, and meanness. Boldness, as already mentioned, is a collection of largely

adaptive traits, such as immunity to stress, emotional resilience, venturesomeness,

social poise, and charisma. While disinhibition is seemingly the opposite, namely a

collection of traits such as a difficulty in regulating emotions, weak restraint,

impulsiveness, and mistrust and hostility towards others. Finally, meanness, is a

collection of largely socially harmful traits, such as self-empowerment through

destructiveness or cruelty, predatory exploitativeness, contempt toward others, lack of

affiliative capacity, and lack of empathy (Patrick & Drislane, 2015).

Other models of psychopathy put greater emphasis on the causes, rather than

symptoms, of psychopathy. For example, Hamilton, Hiatt Racer, and Newman’s (2015)

study starts off by noting that the field of psychopathy is dominated by two theoretical

camps. One of these camps consists of emotion-focused models, which propose that

psychopathy is rooted in a deficient ability to experience fear and learn from it, as well

as an inability to develop ‘moral’ emotions like empathy and guilt. Consequently,

according to this group of models, an absence of fear and remorse leads to disinhibited

behaviors, which characterize many psychopaths (Hamilton et al., 2015). However, the

second theoretical camp consists of attention-focused models of psychopathy, which, in

many ways, contradict the emotion-focused models of the first camp. In particular, this

group of models views psychopathy as stemming from information processing deficits;

and points to the fact that psychopathic individuals are incapable of processing

contextual information outside of their current attentional focus. This attentional deficit is

believed to undermine psychopaths’ ability to effectively regulate their behavior by

considering alternative, adaptive responses to situations (Hamilton et al., 2015). At the

same time, the attention-focused models, undermine their emotion-focused

counterparts, described earlier, by pointing to the fact that psychopaths show normal

fear response in experiments where emotion stimuli are the primary focus. In fact,

psychopathic individuals show seeming emotional deficits only when threat-relevant

cues are peripheral to a pre-established focus of their attention. However, Hamilton et

al. (2015) point out that both of these groups of models have their strengths; as a result,

in the early sections of their article they review both groups of models, by describing the

main models in each group. Next, the authors outline the limitations of these models,

and the deceptive nature of the emotion-attention dichotomy that separates the two

groups of these models. This is followed by a description of a novel theoretical

framework for psychopathy. According to this novel framework, proposed by the

authors, psychopathy stems from poor perceptual binding, which leads to a snowball

effect that disrupts the development of integrative networks and associative processing.

In addition, Hamilton et al. (2015) describe how this new framework can be used to

account for and conceptualize the full range of psychopathic deficits and traits; thus

breaking down the emotion-attention dichotomy inherent in prior psychopathy models.

References

Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. New

York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

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

Hamilton, R. K., Hiatt Racer, K., & Newman, J. P. (2015). Impaired integration in

psychopathy: A unified theory of psychopathic dysfunction. Psychological

Review, 122(4), 770-791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039703

Hare, R. (1999). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among

us. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

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

Lilienfeld, S. O., Smith, S. F., Sauvigné, K. C., Patrick, C. J., Drislane, L. E., Latzman,

R. D., & Krueger, R. F. (2015). Is boldness relevant to psychopathic personality?

Meta-analytic relations with non-psychopathy checklist-based measures of

psychopathy. Psychological Assessment. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000244

Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., Landfield, K., Watts, A. L., Rubenzer, S., &

Faschingbauer, T. R. (2012). Fearless dominance and the U.S. presidency:

Implications of psychopathic personality traits for successful and unsuccessful

political leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 489-

505. doi: 10.1037/a0029392

Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., & Smith, S. F. (2015). Successful psychopathy: A

scientific status report. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 298-

303. doi: 10.1177/0963721415580297

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

Mathieu, C., Hare, R. D., Jones, D. N., Babiak, P., & Neumann, C. S. (2013). Factor

structure of the B-Scan 360: A measure of corporate psychopathy. Psychological

Assessment, 25(1), 288-293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029262

Mathieu, C., Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Babiak, P. (2014). A dark side of

leadership: Corporate psychopathy and its influence on employee well-being and

job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 83-88.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.010

Patrick, C. J., & Drislane, L. E. (2015). Triarchic model of psychopathy: Origins,

operationalizations, and observed linkages with personality and general

psychopathology. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 627-643. doi:

10.1111/jopy.12119

Van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., De Windt, N., & Alkema, J. (2014). Same

difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and

transformational leadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership

Quarterly, 25(3), 544-562. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.014

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