Increased numbers of psychopaths in senior managerial positions?
hud.ac.uk
hud.ac.uk
Sensationalist title that fits a narrative people want to believe.
The system seems to have worked well in this case.
"Not only was she awarded an exceptionally high mark of 85 per cent"
In most PhD programs (at least in the USA), a B is the absolute minimum grade you can get to receive credit for a course. An 85% on a major class project would have basically been a "B for effort" - you did SOMETHING, but it had major flaws.
UK grading at undergrad is 40% pass, then anything over 75% is Class 1.
>It raises the possibility that large numbers of ruthless risk-takers are able to conceal their level of psychopathy as they rise to key managerial posts.
which is a pretty good indication that the paper drew no such conclusion at all.
That does not stop people from using disorder names as shorthand. "OMG I'm so OCD about checking that my back door is locked!" "I'm pretty Aspberger at parties." Etc. But it's important to remember that these are a casual shorthand, not actual diagnoses. People with actual Obsessive Compulsive Disorder do not laugh about it; they are in deep distress about it.
So: while we can talk about psychopathic tendencies, or use "psychopath" as a shorthand, people who operate normally or successfully over a long term in business are likely not afflicted with a psychopathic disorder. They might be ruthless, they might be hard headed, they might have lower empathy than average. That doesn't necessarily mean they need to weeded out, excluded, treated, etc.
The hard question is: at what point is not a normal and adaptive difference in personality, vs. a disorder that must be weeded out? And who is in that position to do so?
It's tempting to look at something like the 2008 financial meltdown and chalk it up to a bunch of psychopathic banking CEOs. I think that's a bad idea for two reasons.
First, it can inhibit a more detailed and nuanced understanding of the root causes of problems. We run the risk of not addressing the real causes, stuff blowing up again, and then just blaming it on psychopaths again. Cycle, cycle.
Second, it runs the risk of demonizing skills or personality traits that might actually be valuable in business.
When you're making decisions by numbers, you might sometimes have to set aside or reduce the emotional content of your decisions.
When leaders try to give people everything they ask for, they create unsustainable systems, because there are not infinite resources in the world. And things change; innovation eats old products and business models. And then when the system collapses into bankruptyc or mass layoffs, the leaders left holding the bag are accused of making psychopathic decisions.
Whereas as less empathetic leader (or more disciplined, if you want to put a positive spin on it) might have made more economically sustainable decisions in the first place.
This is extremely important. "OCD" has become a joke to many, but it's a horrible, debilitating mental condition to those who actually suffer clinical OCD.
Oddly enough, Cracked came out with one of the best articles I've seen explaining why OCD is so very far from a laughing matter: http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-no-one-tells-you-about-...
It's not fun to be in those positions, but it happens, and having a stomach for that kind of ugliness over the long run is what allows people to work in those kinds of positions. That may select for psychopaths, or for people who can overcome their emotional distaste, which can look superficially like psychopathy I suppose.
http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Intelligence-Matter-More-Tha...
http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(14)00077-4/abstr...
The thesis was: Psychopathy may be correlated with higher IQ.
Tests were done, except the psychopathic responses were recorded on the lower IQ responders, not high IQ responders.
Conclusion: High IQ psychopaths faked their emotions to keep their cover - thus confirming the thesis...???
I was under the impression that there was already data supporting this.
As this submission shows a lot of research is fucking hopeless.
I'd be very careful about drawing conclusions from a book, even very good books like Jon Ronson's books, about psychopathy. The science isn't good; he's not a scientist nor a science writer; etc.
Things are much easier if you want to substitute "assholes" for "person with antisocial personality disorder", because you're not stigmatising mental illness and you're not making shit up, you're just voicing an opinion on the weird behaviours seen in some bosses.
I took the book as "here's a light history of this diagnostic tool that's almost certainly flawed AND misapplied, plus some interesting anecdotes". It's obviously not, like, a science book.