A few years ago a study explored the professions most likely to have psychopaths among their number.  The Great British Psychopath Survey ranked CEO as the profession most likely to have psychopaths in, followed closely by lawyers.

Such characters are often superficially charming, but lack any empathy, blame or guilt.  It’s easy to imagine how some of those characteristics might be useful in a leader, especially if combined with boldness and disinhibition.  Most leaders will need to make tough decisions to some extent, but too much of these characteristics can be disastrous.

A recent study set out to explore the consequences for leaders who have psychopathic tendencies.  The researchers performed a meta-analysis of previous research, before then re-analyzing the results of several of these studies.

Psychopathic leaders

The analysis supported the notion that psychopaths were more likely to become leaders, although only slightly so.  They were less likely, however, to be seen as effective leaders, especially when judged by those they lead.

Interestingly, there appeared to be a gender divide evident in the results.  For instance, psychopathic men were both more likely to become leaders, and more likely to be thought of as an effective leader.  For psychopathic women however, neither was the case.

They do however suggest there is relatively little evidence to suggest that most leaders, or indeed more leaders are psychopaths, although the differences in gender-based reactions do mirror similar findings from studies looking at how we perceive male and female leaders.  As with those, acting assertively was a positive for men, but a negative for women.  It suggests that poor behavior can be overlooked by male leaders, but can be damaging for female leaders.  If women attempt to become more ‘masculine’ in their approach therefore, it might backfire on them.

Working under a psychopath

Interestingly, previous research has also found that our own levels of psychopathy can influence how we find working under a psychopathic leader.

“There are primary and secondary dimensions of psychopathy,” the researchers explain. “Both consist of high levels of antisocial behavior; however, people who score high in primary psychopathy lack empathy and are cool-headed and fearless. They don’t react to things that cause other people to feel stressed, fearful or angry. Secondary psychopaths are more hot-headed and impulsive.”

The team believe that those veering more towards primary psychopathy do well when working under psychopathic bosses.  Such employees tend to feel much less anger than their peers at the behavior of the manager, and subsequently exhibit higher engagement levels.

Far from condoning abusive leadership however, the authors are at pains to point out that there are many ways in which organizations enable abusive managers, and these are nearly always harmful.

“It may reward and retain exactly the kind of people who are likely to perpetuate abusive cultures,” they explain. “Psychopaths thriving under abusive supervisors would be better positioned to get ahead of their peers.”

The findings also underline the importance of going beyond basic engagement levels as a metric of organizational health.  In abusive environments the employee turnover can be so high that it’s very difficult to get an accurate gauge of engagement levels.  Indeed, in such environments, the employees that remain might be high in psychopathic traits themselves, resulting in a highly engaged, but psychopathic workforce, which is probably not something organizations would strive for.