Hacker News Reader

Comment by bweitzman | Hacker News Reader

I remember reading something a few years ago that criticized the use of the term psychopath because it wasn't defined in a rigid way and the definition basically tracked the general populations general fears. And because we as a society are afraid of corporations now, CEO's become the target, and possibly the baseline, for the definition of psychopath.

I'm sure that many CEOs share a certain personality type, but to claim that most CEOs have a serious mental disorder seems ridiculous to me.

View on HN

Psychopathy is defined as scoring a 30/40 or higher on the standard psychometric for it, the Hare psychopathy checklist.

Psychopathy is characterized by a number of traits that are sometimes adaptable and sometimes maladaptive, depending on the context. Those traits include impulsivity, irresponsibility, and a lack of empathy.

There are far more psychopaths in prisons than there are in board rooms. Successful psychopathy seems rare, even among psychopaths. But, being a CEO is rare anyway, and since we can agree that many CEO's share a certain personality type, it's not a stretch to think that the personality type they share is trending towards a personality disorder, namely psychopathy.

Where do you remember reading that? I'd like to vet the reliability of the source before I make inferences on it.

I don't know any major CEO's myself but I can't imagine having to fire 100's of people to make my share price go up a few cents. Yet CEO's do that sort of thing all the time. What do you call people that will put others out of work for no better reason than some short term increase in share price, which will benefit themselves, directly or indirectly?

Yet CEO's do that sort of thing all the time.

Citation, please? I mean, specifically, that they don't have qualms about doing it for trivial valuation reasons. There's also an argument to be made for corporations being too reticent to fire deadwood employees. IMHO, that's just as much a problem.

Personal anecdote: I talk to our CEO pretty regularly - she's probably the only billionaire I'll ever meet. I know that she personally feels the responsibility for keeping the business viable, because it's the source of income for nearly 3,000 families.

Of course, my experience is just a single data point. But I don't see that it's any less valid than a viewpoint that, as far as I can see, is based on TV and movie drama.

I have a few data points - I worked in the banking industry for many years and saw this sort of behaviour all the time. People, including entire teams were fired, not because the banks were losing money and had to cut jobs to survive, but simply because they wanted to increase profitability.

If you want citations - there are vast masses out there - here is just one:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hsbc-unveils-overhaul-of-global-...

If you have an opportunity to increase profitability and you don't take it you _are_ losing money, at least so long as the opportunity is sustainable.

Rational?

It's not a job I'd want to do but it makes sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com