Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work (24 page)

“Coworkers from Hell”?

“Bad” bosses are not the only people we hear about. We have also heard a lot about coworkers and colleagues with negative attitudes, antisocial tendencies, manipulation, irresponsibility, poor performance, and a tendency to disrupt others who are trying to work.

Clearly, these individuals are particularly difficult to work with and to manage, but there may be plausible explanations other than psychopathy for their behavior. To understand this we need to consider the factors people commonly use when evaluating colleagues and coworkers. Again, organizational researchers have discovered an important factor: it is called conscientiousness by the industrial psychologists who study it.

Individuals who are highly conscientious tend to focus on doing a good job; they like being accurate, timely, and thorough. They take pride in completing the jobs they start, are very responsible and detail oriented, and like to be seen by others as competent. Low-conscientiousness coworkers can get sloppy about meeting deadlines, achieving goals, or finishing what they start. They can come across as irresponsible, unfocused, disruptive, and poor performers. Sometimes they rely on others to help them get their work done—or others may feel the need to “cover” for them so as not to hurt the team’s or department’s overall performance. Clearly, most of us prefer to work next to individuals who are conscientious in their work. It seems fairer to us for others to carry their own weight on the job, especially if they are drawing a salary similar to the one we receive.

A lot of research has shown that conscientiousness is a primary dimension of personality, rather than just a style or personal preference.

182

S N A K E S I N S U I T S

People vary on this trait as much as they do on other personality traits—we all have various degrees of conscientiousness in our makeup. However, being at the extremely low end or extremely high end of the scale, while disconcerting to some of our coworkers, is not necessarily a bad thing. Your effectiveness at work depends, once again, on the match between your degree of conscientiousness and the specific job you do. Examples of jobs requiring moderate levels of conscientiousness typically include artists, creative research scientists, or visionary leaders, because of the need to step out of the box or take risks when creating new works of art, pursuing new knowledge, or leading in uncertain times. Conversely, jobs like design engineer and nuclear power plant operator require high degrees of conscientiousness; managing many important details is critical to their success.

While the “fit” between levels in conscientiousness and job requirements may not be perfect in real-life situations, there is no reason to suspect that coworkers low (or high) in conscientiousness are psychopaths.

Psychopath or Difficult Person?

Individual differences in consideration, structuring, and conscientiousness are normal parts of human behavior in any organization.

However, there are some clusters of psychopathic traits that do come across as low consideration, extreme structuring, and low conscientiousness. If demonstrated together, they could raise the suspicion that one is dealing with a psychopath.

What would a psychopath look like according to these common business models? Many psychopaths would clearly be rated very low on consideration (rude, arrogant, and self-centered, among other things), at the extreme when it comes to structuring jobs (either uncaring or overbearing), and very low on conscientiousness (irresponsible, impulsive, arrogant, self-centered, and seemingly unwilling to
I’m Not a Psychopath, I Just Talk and Act Like One
183

accept responsibility). As we stated before, these factors alone do not indicate psychopathy, but they certainly are warning flags. But what else does one need to look for?

Psychopaths, although capable of hiding some of their attitudes and traits from others, are in fact amazingly consistent in their psychological makeup. Years of study have uncovered their unique personality structure, reflected in the four components or dimensions of psychopathy (see page 27): interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and antisocial. All psychopaths score very high on the affective dimension, but there are variations in their scores on the other three dimensions, giving rise to a number of psychopathic “styles.”

What we know is that virtually all exhibit some form of asocial, antisocial, or aggressive behavior, whether overt or covert. They are all egotistical, having a sense of entitlement and the assertiveness to demand it, which often makes them appear selfish in relationships.

They all have a grandiose sense of who they are and insist that others give them the respect due them. They are not as goal oriented as the rest of us when it comes to actual diligence and hard work, although they will frequently tell others how ambitious they are and weave a (phony) hard-luck story about how they overcame immense odds growing up poor or underprivileged or from an abusive home. Yet they are all irresponsible when it comes to attending to appropriate behaviors (for example, not doing the job they were assigned or making promises they do not keep), both on and off the job. And they rarely, if ever, experience guilt or remorse for any of their transgressions, even the most outrageous and hurtful.

A Fundamental Mistake

One of the biggest and most painful mistakes we make is to assume that everyone has much the same capacity as we do for emotional experiences. Because we have little difficulty in putting ourselves in the emotional shoes of another person, we are
184

S N A K E S I N S U I T S

surprised at the callous indifference some people appear to show to the pain and suffering of others. What we often fail to realize is that there are some individuals, including psychopaths, whose own emotional life is so shallow that they cannot construct an accurate emotional facsimile of those around them.

Recent brain imaging research indicates that the experiences and events that most people find emotional are associated with activation of several brain areas, including the limbic system, which is sometimes referred to as the “emotional brain.” But these same experiences and events
fail to activate components
of the limbic system in psychopaths.
Indeed, psychopaths respond to what should be an emotionally arousing event (such as an emotional word or a gruesome picture) as if it were
not
emotional at all. Curiously, in psychopaths, the parts of the brain that
are
activated by such events tend to be associated with language processing. Their response seems to be more cognitive or linguistic than emotional. Their callous indifference to the plight and inner pain of others is more akin to that of a predator to its prey.

But we often fail to realize this—a fundamental mistake—

preferring instead to believe that everyone shares the same inner turmoil and pain.

Individuals who interact with psychopaths frequently, though, also note some clear differences. Some psychopaths come across as more impulsive or erratic than others do. The more impulsive psychopaths require immediate gratification and use short-term predatory strategies to get what they want. The less impulsive types tend to appear less predatory in their pursuit of gratification, instead relying on opportunities coming to them. This difference is possibly due to different physiological factors, but the exact mechanism is unclear at this time. Some psychopaths (arguably the less intelligent ones) are driven to satisfy the most basic instinctual needs, such as food and sex, while others seek higher-level satisfaction in power, control, or
I’m Not a Psychopath, I Just Talk and Act Like One
185

fame. Some are more subtle or clever in their manipulations of others, using charm and linguistic skills to get others to obey and con-form. Others are more blunt, attempting to con in clumsy ways, and then resorting to abusive demands when their “charm” does not work. This latter type acts out their aggressions in violent, vindictive, ruthless ways, while the former are less reactive—perhaps more in control of their inner drives—relying on suggestions, intimidation, and “passive aggression” to get their way.

Manipulators and Bullies—Different Styles?

Forensic research on psychopaths has recently revealed that there are, in fact, several psychopathic subtypes within the global syndrome of psychopathy. These subtypes—the classic, the macho, and the manipulative—are described in the sidebar below. It is an open question at this time whether these subtypes are a reflection of the individual’s brain physiology or a result of personal growth and development. Yet all seem to represent primary themes or styles that dominate their particular psychopathic approach to life and relationships. Would these types show themselves on the job?

Variations on a Theme

A high score on the PCL: SV can result from many different combinations of features. For example, statistical analyses of the scores of large numbers of offenders and patients have revealed three main “psychopathic styles.” All three share the affective features of the disorder (that is, shallow emotions; lack of empathy, guilt, or remorse), but differ somewhat on the other dimensions.

The
classic style
consists of those with a
high
score on each of the psychopathy dimensions: interpersonal, affective, lifestyle,
186

S N A K E S I N S U I T S

and antisocial. They exhibit virtually
all
the features that define psychopathy.

The
manipulative style
consists of those with a
high
score on the interpersonal and affective dimensions, and somewhat
lower
scores on the lifestyle and antisocial dimensions. They manipulate, deceive, and charm but are less impulsive and antisocial than are the other types. They are talkers more than doers.

The
macho style
consists of those with a
high
score on the affective, lifestyle, and antisocial dimensions, and a
low
score on the interpersonal dimension. They are aggressive, bullying, and abrasive individuals, less charming and manipulative than the other types. They are doers more than talkers.

When we analyzed the anecdotes and stories from readers and program participants as well as others we have worked with, and then added in our own research, we discovered two distinctive styles of corporate psychopath that seem to fit well with what we know of two of these psychopathic subtypes.

Some psychopaths, the corporate manipulators or cons—like the manipulative type—are adept at using others in pursuit of fame, fortune, power, and control. They are deceitful, egotistical, superficial, manipulating, and prone to lying. They do not care about the consequences of their own behavior, rarely thinking about what the future might hold. They never take responsibility, despite promises to deliver on goals, objectives, and personal favors. When confronted, they will blame others for the problem at hand, not accepting responsibility for their actions. They are rude and callous to individuals who have nothing to offer them, feeling superior and entitled. They never think about the harm they inflict on people or institutions, often coming across in interactions as totally devoid of human emotions, especially empathy. To apologize for something they did is foreign to them, as they do not experience remorse or guilt.

I’m Not a Psychopath, I Just Talk and Act Like One
187

They Just Don’t Get It

In 2005, John Rigas, eighty-year-old founder of Adelphia Communications, and his forty-eight-year-old son, Timothy Rigas, were convicted of securities fraud and conspiracy and for bilking investors in what the judge described as one of the largest frauds in corporate history. John Rigas was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, and his son to twenty years. Referring to the former, the judge said, “Long ago he set Adelphia on a track of lying, of cheating, of defrauding.”

The responses of the Rigases were revealing. “I may be convicted and sentenced,” said the elder Rigas, “but in my heart and conscience I’ll go to the grave believing truly that I did nothing but try to improve conditions” for the company and his family. His son, Timothy Rigas, told the judge that, “Our intentions were good. The results were not.”

Yet, despite all this, the manipulators can be surprisingly successful in dealing with others, relying primarily on their excellent ability to charm and weave a believable story to influence others. They are adept at reading situations and people, and then modifying their approach to best influence those around them. They can turn on the charm when it suits them, and turn it off when they want. Because of their chameleon-like ability to hide their dark side, they can quickly and easily build trusting relationships with others, and then take advantage of them or betray them in some way. Manipulators seem to experience a gamelike fascination in fooling people, getting into other people’s heads and getting them to do things for them.

This ability to win psychological games with people seems to give them a sense of personal satisfaction.

While they may come across as ambitious—a trait they will play up—they actually have few long-range goals of any consequence, relying more on their innate ability to seize an opportunity that in-188

S N A K E S I N S U I T S

terests them at any given moment and then weave it into the story they tell others. Should something else more exciting come along—

a new job or a new love interest—they will move quickly toward the new opportunity, a tendency that can make them look somewhat impulsive and irresponsible to observers. While they may blow up at coworkers, flying into a rage and then calming down just as quickly (as if nothing has happened), they can also control their anger if it is in their best interest to do so—saving their vindictiveness for a later time.

Another group of psychopaths is much more aggressive. This group, the corporate bullies, seems to reflect many of the traits of the macho psychopath: they are primarily abusive rather than charming. Bullies are not as sophisticated or as smooth as the manipulative type, as they rely on coercion, abuse, humiliation, harassment, aggression, and fear to get their way. They are callous to almost everyone, intentionally finding reasons to engage in conflict, to blame others for things that go wrong, to attack others unfairly (in private and in public) and to be generally antagonistic. They routinely disregard the rights and feelings of others and frequently violate traditional norms of appropriate social behavior. If they do not get their way, they become vindictive, maintaining a grudge for a considerable amount of time, and take every opportunity to “get even.”