Psychopathy in the Workplace

Psychopathy is a topic that has long been fascinating to the public at large as well as to scientists and clinical practitioners. However, it has also been subject to considerable confusion and scholarly debate over the years. This chapter describes alternative conceptions of psychopathy that have been proposed historically, and reviews major instruments currently in use for the assessment of psychopathic features/traits in clinical and nonclinical samples. An integrative theoretical framework, the triarchic model, is considered as a basis for reconciling differing historic conceptions and assessment approaches. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the utility of the triarchic model for addressing issues such as psychopathy subtypes, successful versus unsuccessful psychopathy, and causal factors contributing to different behavioral expressions of psychopathy.

Effectively screening potential employees for psychopathy is essential to building and maintaining a healthy, ethical, and productive workplace. Psychopathy is a problematic psychological syndrome characterized by superficial charm, manipulation, lack of empathy, an exaggerated sense of importance, deceit, theft, and even violence. While it is apparent that these traits are counterproductive in the workplace, accurately identifying people with these characteristics can be challenging. In this chapter, we discuss the subtle signs of corporate psychopathy and a practical protocol to help detect potential psychopathic employees.

This chapter reviews the current literature on how corporate psychopathy relates to job satisfaction, turnover, and productivity, all of which represent central indicators and determinants of organizational welfare and employee well-being. In this chapter, we address inter- as well as intrapersonal perspectives. That is, we elaborate how corporate psychopathy levels of one individual (e.g., a leader) may affect the relevant outcomes in other individuals (e.g., followers). Moreover, we summarize intrapersonal effects by describing how an individual’s expression of psychopathy relates to outcomes within that person (e.g., job satisfaction). Finally, we will look at both global effects of psychopathy as well as describing how its constituent facets may relate differentially to outcomes and we will discuss relevant mechanisms and boundary conditions at the organizational- and person-level which may explain and moderate the relationship between psychopathy and job satisfaction, turnover, and productivity.

Through the lens of corporate psychopathy theory, this chapter integrates theoretical perspectives on abusive supervision, workplace civility, dark humor, employee autonomy, and managerial psychopathy to examine the processes through which these variables influence employee mental health and illness. Findings from quantitative studies of the effects of working under psychopathic managers are integrated with qualitative research on the same phenomena, to gain a robust understanding of the ways managerial psychopathy contributes to employee mental health and illness. This chapter presents information regarding how psychopathic employees use incivility, bullying, aggressive humor, and close employee control to manage their environment via creating a climate of fear and disengagement and that this results in deteriorating employee mental health.

The personality trait of psychopathy incorporates features of “superficial charm, dishonesty, egocentricity, risk-taking, and a lack of empathy and guilt masked by apparent normalcy” (Smith & Lilienfeld in Aggress Violent Behav 18:206, 2013). The trait has been mostly associated with detrimental outcomes. However, there are also reports of quite successful psychopaths and the seemingly paradoxical idea of two faces of psychopathy has fueled an emerging literature on successful psychopathy. In this chapter, we first discuss two problems that have hitherto hampered consistent approaches to the question of successful psychopathy: there is a lack of a homogenous definition of the trait and the question of what is implied by successful psychopathy. To overcome these problems, we use a triarchic perspective on psychopathy that has proven to be promising in the work context. We define successful psychopathy as achieving desirable outcomes rather than just the avoidance of undesirable ones. We then introduce different approaches of how successful psychopathy might actually look like and present empirical results regarding successful psychopathy in the workplace. In the latter, we also distinguish between “truly” successful cases and cases of success that, from the organization’s perspective, represent toxic careers. Finally, we provide an overview of the implications of these findings for practice.

The presence of psychopathy in the workplace, though a relatively rare phenomenon, can lead to a toxic work environment and potential emotional discord outside of the workplace. Psychopathy is commonly stigmatized in the media, with the afflicted often being portrayed as violent criminal masterminds. However, off the silver screen and in the corporate world, psychopathy manifests quite differently. Psychopathy is a constellation of traits that has been conceptualized in varying ways over the years. Two of the most widely accepted theoretical frameworks of psychopathy are the Triarchic Model and the Three factor Model, which comprise many overlapping traits, including impulsivity, lack of empathy, and a multitude of maladaptive interpersonal behaviors. While there are clinical ways to assess an individual for psychopathic traits, doing so in the workplace is complex and nuanced. Through education and the sharing of information, employees can recognize behavioral and personality characteristics that may be indicative of psychopathic traits in a coworker. It is important to note that not all associated psychopathic traits are maladaptive in the workplace. While knowledge of these characteristics should not be used to diagnose or discriminate, it may aid in the development of adaptive strategies and improve relationships in the workplace.

Up to 52% of employees are or have been subject to workplace bullying (WB) globally, in a wide variety of professions. The research on WB suggests that it is both costly and encompasses a wide variety of behaviors and interactions ranging from subtle and covert tactics, like withholding information and isolating a victim, to overt aggression and physical abuse. This may be one possible reason as to why researchers differ in their definition of the term “bullying,” often equalizing it with “mobbing,” “harassment,” or “aggression.” Many agree with a definition of bullying which includes a pattern of recurring adversarial verbal and nonverbal interactions directed toward a target and resulting in negative consequences on the target’s physical and mental health. Boddy (J Bus Ethics 100:367–379, 2011) offers strong, positive, and significant correlations between the ethical issues of bullying and unfair supervision in the workplace and the presence of corporate/workplace psychopaths. This chapter describes the Workplace Power-Control Wheel (WPCW), which assumes that those who target workers are motivated by the need for power and control in the workplace. Offenders, including workplace psychopaths, use both overt and covert tactics to keep targets off balance, adding to the psychological toll of being bullied at work. The WPCW described in this chapter helps targets of bullying name their experiences more effectively, which may aid in documenting and countering abusive and controlling workspace experiences. It may also be useful as a pre-emptive training tool when onboarding new members of an organization in helping prospective workers in identifying methods of both overt and covert control.

Corporate psychopaths are a serious problem within the inadequate but evolving national and international legal frameworks, affecting both individuals and corporate bodies. This chapter canvases the main areas of law potentially available to people and organizations, namely tort, employment, and criminal law for dealing with corporate psychopaths. It also draws attention to potential responses by managers, victims, and bystanders as well as the general limitations of law as a remedy—particularly given that some industries tacitly reward behaviors such as excessive risk taking, non-conformity and even rule-breaking that are attributes of corporate psychopathy. Finally, it suggests that law in the workplace can serve to foster mechanisms for positive psychology rather than relying on traditional legal deterrence through punitive sanctions.

The prevalence of individuals with psychopathic tendencies in corporate leadership positions has been a growing concern among scholars and a subject of increasing interest in the popular press. Numerous studies suggest that individuals with psychopathic traits may be more likely to ascend to leadership roles due to their charisma, persuasiveness, and ability to manipulate others. But longitudinal studies examining the relationship between psychopathy and leadership are scarce (Holland in Pers Rev 49:1039–1052, 2020), complex, and inconclusive. Most studies concur on one finding: psychopathic traits can lead to negative consequences for workers and their organizations (Landay et al. in J Appl Psychol 104:183–196, 2019; Leeper Piquero et al. in Deviant Behav 42:979–992, 2021). This chapter presents an overview of psychopathy in leaders and its impact on several organizational variables and coworkers.

This chapter provides an overview of the book contributors’ points and some directions for future research.