Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
171-188
La plupart des recherches sur les psychopathes ont Ctt conduites dans les
hbpitaux et les prisons. L’article ci-dessous propose l’analyse d’un psycho-
pathe en milieu industriel. La Check List Psychopathique: Version sur Ecran
(PCLSV) fut utiliste pour Cvaluer la psychopathie en observant et en codant
les comportements dans une situation d’emploi. Tandis que les prtctdentes
recherches sur des populations psychopathiques dans des milieux cliniques
ou cardraux dtmontrent qu’elles mknent des vies ratCes, cette Ctude de cas
prtsente un psychopathe industrielayant atteint la rtussite. Les psychopathes
industriels posstdent les caractkristiques des personnalitCs psychopathes mais
pas du tout la progression caractCrisCe du dtveloppement de cornportement
anti-social et de style de vie dtviant. Un modtle suggtre que dans le contexte
d’uo changement chaotique et “souterrain”, ils utilisent leurs talents
manipulateurs pour manoeuvrer avec succts les points-de-vues contra-
dictoires d’allits et de dttracteurs et dtboucher sur des mouvements de
carritre positifs.
~~ ~~
Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Paul Babiak, 27 Memory Lane, Hopewell
Junction, NY 12533, USA.
INTRODUCTION
The inclusion of personality variables in YO research has had a productive
and at times controversial history (Argyris, 1957; Bentz, 1967; Campbell,
Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1971; Ghiselli, 1971; Guion, 1965,1991; Guion
& Gottier, 1965; Hogan, 1991; Hogan, Hogan, & Busch, 1984; Hough et
al., 1990; Sackett & H a m s , 1984). Studies of managerial effectiveness in
particular have revealed the potentially detrimental effects of leaders’
negative personality traits. Lombardo, Ruderman, and McCauley (1988)
found that negative personality traits played a role in their executive sub-
jects’ ultimate “derailment”, while Kets de Vries (1991; Kets de Vries &
Miller, 1984) identified five personality disorders of key managers which
contributed to the creation of different neurotic organisational styles, as
manifested in corporate strategy, structure, and culture. Hogan, Raskin,
and Fazzini (1990, p.348) observed that “there are certain people who have
good social skills, who rise readily in organizations, and who ultimately
derail; but before they fail, they cost their organizations large sums of
money by causing poor morale, excessive turnover, and reduced pro-
ductivity”. These authors, in describing the “dark side of charisma”, add
(1990, p.352) that the narcissistic manager in particular “exploits his or
her subordinates while currying favor with his or her supervisors”.
Kets de Vries and Miller (1985, p.596) differentiate healthy from patho-
logical narcissists. The latter “cares little about hurting and exploiting
others in the pursuit of his own advancement” and is characterised by
“grandiosity, exhibitionism, and preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited
success”, “lacking of empathy”, and a “Machiavellian streak”. Unfor-
tunately, narcissists, driven by needs for prestige and power often end up
in leadership positions (Emmons, 1987; Kernberg, 1979; Kohut, 1971;
Person, 1986), and Hogan and his associates (1990, p.352) observed that
organisations “typically search for those qualities in potential CEOs that
our . . . flawed leaders (especially the Narcissists) are best able to project”.
Psychopathy
There is another personality disorder, psychopathy, which has traditionally
been characterised by traits similar to narcissism, but which also includes
the potential for violence (Hart, Hare, & Forth, 1994; Widiger & Trull,
1994). and criminality (APA, 1987) making this a potentially important
area for applied research. However, very little research has been conducted
in industry, for various reasons to be discussed shortly, not the least of
which is the ability of the psychopath to mask hislher antisocial traits and
present an opposite [prosocial] demeanour, posing an obvious measure-
ment problem for clinical and organisational researchers alike.
A CASE STUDY OF AN INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOPATH 173
TABLE 1
Items in the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version
Factor I Facror 2
1. Superficial 7. Impulsive
2. Grandiose 8. Poor behaviour controls
3. Manipulative 9. Lacks goals
4. Lacks remorse 10. Irresponsible
5. Lacks empathy 11. Adolescent antisocial behaviour
6. Does not accept responsibility 12. Adult antisocial behaviour
A CASE STUDY OF AN INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOPATH 175
of prisoners and forensic patients with APD do not show evidence of the
personality characteristics defined by Factor 1. Research that uses either
DSM-I11 definitions of APD or self-report inventories taps the social
deviance component of psychopathy but misses the personality components
. . . measured by the PCUPCL-R.
Hare and his associates have demonstrated that criminal and forensic
psychopaths score high on both psychopathic personality characteristics
(high Factor 1) and socially deviant behaviour (high Factor 2), whereas
studies on normal samples have shown that non-psychopaths score low
(Hare, 1991; Hart et al., 1994; Trevethan & Walker, 1989). Other possible
profiles, such as low Factor 1, high Factor 2 for non-psychopathic antisocial
personality disorder, and high Factor 1, low Factor 2 for individuals with
psychopathic tendencies but without overt antisocial behaviour, have
received much less attention (R.Hogan, 1992,personal communication).
the controls found in more stable organisations, and may offer an environ-
ment conducive to psychopathic manipulation.
It seems reasonable to hypothesise that subcriminal psychopaths found
in industry would possess psychopathic personality tendencies, measurable
by the PCL:SV Factor 1, but would not as yet have exhibited antisocial
behaviours sufficiently visible to evaluators to achieve other than a mod-
erate PCL:SV Factor 2 score.
CASE MATERIAL
The subject came to this writer’s attention during an organisational study*.
The events cited in this case were gathered during interviews of a variety
of organisation members including the president, two vice presidents, and
the directors of several departments. Direct observation of the subject was
possible on a fairly frequent basis for over a year, and included more than
a dozen face-to-face meetings, department staff meetings, teambuilding
sessions, and various company social functions. In addition, all personnel
documents, such as resumC, application blank, security and reference
checks, performance appraisals, memos, and supervisory notes were
reviewed. Indirect corroboration for some details was also available from
two external suppliers to the company who worked with the subject. Details
have been modified somewhat to assure anonymity of all concerned.
The company was a rapidly growing, highly profitable mid-western
United States electronic products cornpang. It originated as a small group
of highly motivated, entrepreneurial-type individuals, each with a technical
specialty suitable to developing and marketing a unique new product. As
the business expanded, changes at the executive level resulted in significant
changes in organisational culture, not unlike those typically experienced
by maturing entrepreneurial organisations (Flamholtz, 1990).
The Subject
During one meeting, Frank, the supervisor of the subject, raised the issue
of his “problem employee”, Dave, whose erratic performance and strange,
offensive behaviour was disrupting the department. Dave was in his mid-
thirties, a good looking, well spoken professional, married for the third
time with four children. He had a degree from a large university and had
been hired into a newly created position during a hiring surge. Dave inter-
’This case is one of three analysed by the methods described here and is illustrative of
the behaviours under study.
‘Other cases included a high-technology joint venture, and the corporate office of a large
company undergoing decentralisation and severe downsizing.
178 BABIAK
to not knowing him well enough to comment, and referred this writer to
Frank, Dave’s manager.
During his interviews Dave described himself as a hard worker, a strong
leader, a teambuilder. honest, intelligent, and the guy who was really
making the department successful. He repeatedly identified his boss as the
source of all of the problems in the department, and suggested to this
writer that his boss leave the company and he take over running the depart-
ment. (His boss, Frank, said that Dave had made the same suggestion to
him directly.)
Dave came across as egotistical. For example, he described in detail
how often the company president called him personally for advice. He also
bragged about how he managed to get a bigger hotel room than the presid-
ent while attending an offsite meeting. However, at the same time he did
not at all seem concerned about the opinion others had of him. His attitude
and choice of words left the impression that people were objects to him
and that everything he did was part of a game.
While having a cocktail with the subject one evening, this writer asked
Dave how he got his boss to approve an expensive and controversial capital
expenditure. Without emotion, Dave looked into this writer’s eyes and
stated “I lied”. Through interactions such as this, Dave gave the strong
impression that he truly believed everything he was saying and there was
no reason for you not to either. His conviction could often be read as
sincerity.
Confrontation
Subsequently, Frank discovered that Dave had been using company time
and materials t o start his own business. After collecting enough physical
evidence to undertake disciplinary action, Frank went to his own boss [the
A CASE STUDY OF AN INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOPATH 181
director] for support, only to find out that Dave had been complaining to
him about Frank since he joined the company. After hearing the other
side of a lot of stories, the director realised that Dave was distorting the
truth to make Frank look bad and gain sympathy for himself. Convinced
that Dave was a liar and a possible thief, the executive went to the president
and vice president only to discover that Dave was well regarded by them
and considered a high potential employee. They told him to leave Dave
alone!
Within a couple of weeks a reorganisation took place; Frank ended up
in a new function and Dave was promoted. Individuals interviewed after
the promotion reported that Dave’s behaviour became even more unbear-
able, that he was “cocky”, “in love with himself’, and even developed a
“swagger” in his walk.
METHOD
The PCL: Screening Version (Hare, Hart, & Cox, in press), was used to
assess psychopathy of this subject. This instrument consists of 12 psycho-
pathic characteristics (see Table 1) which are assigned values by the
evaluator (2 = match, 1 = partial match, 0 = no match or opposite). The
evaluator bases hisher determinations on face-to-face interviews with the
subject as well as a review of available documentation.
The total score is the sum of all items. Two subscale scores are calculated
by summing items previously identified by factor analyses (Hare, Hart, &
Cox, in press; Harpur et al., 1988).
RESULTS
A PCL:SV total score of 19 was calculated for the present subject. The
recommended cutoff score for psychopathy on the PCL:SV is 18 (Hart et
al., 1994)4.The PCL:SV Factor 1 score was 11 (out of a possible 12) and
the PCL:SV Factor 2 score was 8 (out of 12). Hart et al. (1994) report
mean PCL:SV total scores of 12.97 (SD = 4.92), 15.77 (SD = 4.34), and
16.41 (SD = 3.49) for forensic nonpsychiatric inmate populations, and 3.09
(SD = 3.43) for university students. Comparable results for the PCL-R
are summarised in Hare (1991a).
‘On the PCL-R,which was designed primarily for use with criminal populations and has
a cutoff of 30,the subject received a total Score of 29.4. (This result is at the 71st percentile
for inmates, 86th percentile for forensic patients; Hare, 1991a.) Some investigators have
suggested that Hare and his associates are too conservative in their assessment and a lower
cutoff score of 25 might be more appropriate (Hams, Rice. & Quinsey. 1994). The subject’s
F1 score was 15 (out of 16) which is at the 97th percentile for inmates and the 97th percentile
for forensic patients. The F2 score was 11.6 (out of 18) which is at the 41st percentile for
inmates and the 49th percentile for forensic patients.
182 BABIAK
Discrepant Views
Cleckley (1976) suggested that psychopaths present a “mask of sanity” to the
outside world which protects their true inner state from being uncovered.
It seemed clear from the differing views about the subject encountered in
this study that one portion of the organisation saw the mask Dave wanted
to project, while others, such as Frank, over time saw “behind the mask”.
Dave consistently made favourable first impressions. Over time, how-
ever, the perceptions of some organisation members grew increasingly
negative. The discrepant views in organisation members’ perceptions
seemed to vary as a function of the frequency of interaction with Dave and
the finesse he used to influence them based on their current utility to him
(see Fig. 1).
Doren (1987) has observed, in hospital settings, that psychopaths seek
out the highest authority with which to interact and demonstrate great skill
at influencing people in power (Yukl & Tracey, 1992). The president and
vice president (see Fig. 1, QI) in this case were so influenced by Dave’s
charming faGade that they rationalised Dave’s disruptive, antisocial
behaviours into organisationally acceptable terms. For example, Dave’s
“tantrums” were excused as part of his creative, artistic bent, while his
verbal aggression and backbiting were described as “ambition”.
The QII individuals, including some who had relatively little status or
authority in the organisation, had high utility for Dave. He was able to
manipulate the informal communication network via the staff assistant,
had much of his day-to-day work done by the “soul mate”, and gained
unchallenged access to the building via his relationship with the evening
security guard. All of these individuals reported being flattered by his
attention and frequent requests for assistance [ingratiation and personal
appeal tactics], as well as his offers to speak on their behalf to upper
management [exchange tactic; Yukl & Tracey, 19921. Particularly illus-
trative of his manipulation skill is how he used the staff assistant as a
conduit t o the informal communication network of the company-the
grapevine. Dave spread negative information about his boss and other
rivals by “sharing secrets” with her [exchange tactic], or sometimes by
‘Results for Subject 2: PCL:SV Total = 19, SVFl = 1 1 , SVF2 = 8; PCL-R Total = 30.6,
F1 = 15, F2 = 11.6. Results for Subject 3: PCL:SV Total = 20.7, SVFl = 12, SVF2 = 8.4;
PCL-R Total = 30, F1 = 16, F2 = 11.6.
A CASE STUDY OF AN INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOPATH 183
PERCEPTIONS OF DAVE
NEGATIVE POSITIVE
QIII
LO HI
UTILITY TO DAVE
FIG. 1 . After one year, discrepant views of Dave emerged.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1952). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1968). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (2nd edn.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1980). Diagnostic and s&atisticalmanual of mental
disorders (3rd edn.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1987). Dingnostic and sfatirricalmanual of mental
disorders (3rd edn., revised). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th edn.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization-The conflict between system and the
individual. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Bentz, V.J. (1967). The Sears experience in the investigation, description, and prediction
of executive behavior. In F.R. Wickert & D.E. McFarland (Eds.), Measuring executive
effectiveness (pp. 147-206). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Buss, A.H. (1966). Psychopathology. New York: Wiley.
Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E., & Weick, K.E. Jr. (1971). Managerial
behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of saniry (5th edn,). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
186 BABIAK
Doren, D. (1987). Understanding and treating rhe psychopath. New York: Wiley.
Eisenman, R. (1980). Effective manipulation by psychopaths. Corrective and Social
Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology, Merhods and Therapy, 26, 11&118.
Emmons, R.A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52 (l), 11-17.
Flamholtz, E.G. (1990). Growing pains: How to make the transition f r o m an entrepreneur-
ship 10 a professionally managed firm (Revised edn.). San Francisco: lossey-Bass lnc.
Forth, A.E., Hart, S.D., & Hare, R.D. (1990). Assessment of psychopathy in male young
offenders. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
2 , 342-344.
Ghiselli, E.E. (1971). Explorations in managerial talent. Pacific Palisades: Goodyear.
Gill, B. (1987). Many masks. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
Guion, R.M. (1%5). Personnel testing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guion, R.M. (1991). Personnel assessment, selection, and placement. In M.D. Dunnette &
L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of indusrrial and organizationalpsychology (pp.327-397).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Guion, R.M., & Gottier. R.F. (1%5). Validity of personality measures in personnel selec-
tion. Personnel Psychology, 18, 135-164.
Hare, R.D. (1985a). The psychopathy checklist. Unpublished manuscript, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Hare, R.D. (1985b). Comparison of the procedures for the assessment of psychopathy.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 7-16.
Hare, R.D. (1991a). r h e Hare psychopathy checklist-revised, manual. Toronto: Multi-
Health Systems, Inc.
Hare, R.D. (1991b). The Hare PCL-R: Raring book. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Hare, R.D. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychoparhs among us.
New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Hare, R.D., Hart, S.D.. & Cox, D.N. (in press). The Harepsychopathy checklist: Screening
version (PCL:SV). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems Inc.
Hare, R.D., Forth, A.E., & Hart, S.D. (1989). The psychopath as prototype for patho-
logical lying and deception. In J.C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp.2-9).
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hare, R.D., Harpur, T.J., Hakstian. A.R., Forth, A.E., Hart, S.D., & Newman, J.P.
(1990). The revised psychopathy checklist: Reliability, and factor structure. PsychoIogical
Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 338-341.
Hare, R.D.. & McPherson, L.M. (1984). Violent and aggressive behavior by criminal
psychopaths. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 7, 35-50.
Harpur, T.J., Hakstian, A.R., & Hare, R.D. (1988). Factor structure of the psychopathy
checklist. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 141-747.
Harpur, T.J., & Hare, R.D. (1991, August). Psychopathy and violent behavior: Two factors
are better than one. Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Psychological Associ-
ation, San Francisco.
Harpur, T.J., Hare, R . D . , & Hakstian, A.R. (1989). Two-factor conceptualization of
psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications. Psychological Assessment:
A Journal of Consulring and Clinical Psychology, I , 6 1 7 .
Harpur, T.J., Hart, S.D., & Hare, R.D. (1994). Personality of the psychopath. In P.T.
Costa, Jr. & T.A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of
personaliry (pp.149-173). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Harris, G., Rice, M.,& Quinsey, V. (1994). Psychopathy as a taxon: Evidence that psycho-
paths are a discrete class. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 387-397.
A CASE STUDY OF AN INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOPATH 187
Hart, S.D., Hare, R.D., & Forth, A.E. (1994). Psychopathy as a risk marker for violence:
Development and validation of a screening version of the revised psychopathy checklist.
In J. Monahan & H. Steadman (Eds.). Violence and mental disorder. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Hawk, S.S., & Peterson, R.A. (1974). Do MMPI psychopathic deviancy scores reflect
psychopathic deviancy or just deviancy? Journal of Personality Assessment, 38.362-368.
Hogan, R.T. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M.D. Dunnette &
L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organirntionalpsychology (pp.87S919).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Busch, C. (1984). How to measure service orientation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 69, 157-163.
Hogan, R., Raskin, R.. & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K.E. Clark &
M.B. Clark (Eds.), Mearures of leadership (pp.34S354). West Orange, NJ: Leadership
Library of America, Inc.
Hough, L.M., Eaton. N.K., Dunnette, M.D., Kamp, J.D., & McCloy, R.A. (1990).
Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion
on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (5), 581-595.
Kernberg, 0. (1979). Regression in organizational leadership. Psychiurry, 42, 29-39.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R.(1991). On becoming a CEO: Transference and the addictiveness of
power. In M.F.R. Kets de Vries & D. Miller (Eds.), Organizarions on rhe couch-Clinical
perspectives on organizational behavior and change (pp. 120-139). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R., & Miller, D. (1984). The neurotic organirntion; Diugnosing and
changing counterproductive styles of management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R., & Miller, D. (1985). Narcissism and leadership: An object relations
perspective. Human Relations, 38 (6). 583-601.
Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis ofthe self. New York: International Universities Press.
Lombardo, M.M., Ruderrnan, M.N., & McCauley, C.D. (1988). Explanations of success
and derailment in upper-level management positions. Journal of Business and Psychology,
2 , 199-216.
Lowman, R.L.(1989). Pre-employment screening for psychopathology: A guide to pro-
fessional practice. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange, Inc.
McCord, W., & McCord, J. (1964). The psychopath: An essay on the criminal mind.
Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Organ, D.W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organiza-
tional citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (1). 157-164.
Person, E.S. (1986). Manipulativeness in entrepreneurs and psychopaths. In W.H. Reid,
D. Dorr, J.I. Walker, & J.W. Bonner (Eds.), Unmasking the psychopath: Antisocial
personality and related syndromes (pp.256274). New York: Norton.
Quay, H.C. (1965). Psychopathic personality as pathological stimulation seeking. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 122, 18&183.
Robins, L.N. (1966). Deviunt children grown up. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
Sackett, P.R, & Harris, M.M. (1984). Honesty testing for personnel selection: A review
and critique. Personnel Psychology, 37, 221-245.
Trevethan, S.D., & Walker, L.J. (1989). Hypothetical versus real-life moral reasoning
among psychopathic and delinquent youth. Development and Psychopathology, 1.91-103.
Vaillant, G.E. (1975). Sociopathy as a human process. Archives of General Psychiatry, 32,
178-183.
Widiger, T.A., & Trull, T.J. (1994). Personality disorders and violence. In J. Monahan &
H. Steadman (Eds.), Violence and mental disorder (pp.20S226). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
iaa BABIAK