When high profile corporate difficulties finally unravel in public (think of Enron, Mirror Group, Barings, Lehmans or Société Générale) they generally expose behaviour on the part of certain senior executives ranging from the questionable to the outrageous. Their activities have apparently gone on unchecked by any risk, governance or ethical structures that the organisation believes that it has in place. One possible contributor to this situation is the existence of the organisational psychopath.
We all have an idea of what a psychopath is, fuelled by media hype. However in reality not all psychopaths are killers or even criminals. Psychopathy is a disorder of the personality where an individual will display a mix of the following traits:
- lack of remorse;
- impulsive behaviour;
- lack of responsibility;
- lack of empathy;
- grandiose self belief;
- prone to boredom;
- manipulative and persuasive;
- exploitative;
- deceitful; and
- superficial charm and charisma.
Sound like anyone you know? It is suggested that the condition is something physiological or genetic that you are born with but that upbringing may determine how the traits are expressed: a good upbringing may produce a shady businessman rather than a violent criminal.
In the beginning
The business career of a psychopath starts at the recruitment stage where recruiters can be fooled into thinking that they are hiring a very desirable candidate when in fact they are getting too much of a good thing. Controls that can be applied at the interview stage include:
- careful wording of advertisements in relation to the use of words like 'visionary', 'persuasive' and 'influential' and an understanding that these can be magnets to psychopaths;
- avoiding single interviews with one interviewer, thus reducing the potential for manipulation;
- use of structured interviews and selection processes;
- use of psychometric tests to identify negative characteristics; and
- thorough checking of references.
Digging in
Once the psychopath is in the organisation then the second, induction, phase starts when they assess the usefulness of colleagues and begin forming relationships with those who may be of use to them. This can range from those with formal power (psychopaths are quite comfortable approaching those at the top of the organisation on the excuse of being new) to those with control over resources. The psychopath then spends the majority of their time manipulating those people with whom they have built relationships to complete their work without actually doing any themselves. Conflict is deliberately created between peers to reduce communication and hence ensure that the full extent of the dysfunctional individual's behaviour is unknown. Anyone who threatens the psychopath may have their reputation undermined and their career derailed. Not surprisingly, having an exploitative and manipulative individual within the organisation can have negative effects on teamwork and on co-workers, but the role of the psychopath themselves may remain unmasked for a long time.
Camouflage techniques
Certain types of organisation are more likely to harbour those with psychopathic tendencies than others: psychopaths are more likely to be successful in organisations undergoing change, where there is confusion over roles and responsibilities. Anti-social behaviour can be easier to hide in such organisations as it is difficult to monitor and manage performance at such times and disregard for the rules may be excused. The changes being driven by the financial crisis and measures to address government debt are likely to provide further cover. Where organisations position themselves as dynamic, fast moving and risk taking and such behaviour is rewarded with money and status, they may actively, if unwittingly, be attracting psychopaths to leadership positions and giving them scope to indulge in unethical and ultimately disruptive behaviour. Sectors including sales, law, politics, finance and, interestingly, psychiatry are thought by researchers to attract more than their fair share of the ethically challenged.
Reducing the risk
So there are good reasons for being alert to the possibility of dysfunctional individuals rising to the top of organisations. These are organisations where good corporate governance requires other, non-psychopathic, traits including honesty, team working, trust, integrity, mutual respect and commitment. DIY diagnosis, labelling and 'treatment' of individuals is not an effective tactic and could even raise issues of disability discrimination. Organisational culture is the most important shield: psychopathic behaviour is significantly less successful in organisations that promote openness and honesty and which value consistent enforcement of organisational policies and controls systems that cannot easily be ignored or overridden. If the organisation has a system of rules and controls, and a culture that supports abiding by the rules, then it will be less exposed to individuals seeking to bend or break those rules. Likewise, if an organisation has determined its appetite for risk, translated this into operating tolerances for all parts of the organisation and co-ordinates the whole process then it is less exposed to unrecognised risks being taken in one part of the organisation.
Beware political animals
Whereas the problem should not be overstated, organisations should be aware that not everyone who comes to them is motivated to do a good job for the benefit of the organisation. A culture of openness, honesty and social responsibility, together with an effective control framework, may be the best defence, whether the behaviour arises from a diagnosable disorder or just old-fashioned corporate politics.