High-Tech Leaders Assessed with the Psychopath Test and How Extreme Management Styles Affect Organizational Productivity

Introduction

Psychology looks at the effects of genetics and upbringing to explain an individual’s mental state and the reasoning behind their actions. Human interaction and behaviors can help define and decide the outcomes of certain projects, especially in business settings. In the corporate world, the leadership styles of managers are based on the psychology of an individual and workplace needs. Psychopaths have only recently been heavily studied and applied to real world situations. Studies have found that 1 out of 100 people are known to be psychopaths, and with that, 4% of leaders with substantial decision making are also psychopaths. Utilizing psychologist Robert Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist across everyday people revealed overlapping traits between leaders and psychopaths. This creates an opportunity to further analyze if displaying psychopathic traits makes a more effective leader in business strategies and success. Both psychopaths and strong leaders are confident, charming, obsessive, and persuasive. Psychopaths lack empathy, but are aware of their emotions and choose to ignore social norms to achieve their goals. These individuals become so engrossed in their objectives that they often lose sight of reality. In the past decade, industry giants have been blasted by the media criticizing corporate culture, leadership, scandals, and first-hand employee complaints. Despite a negative public image, these companies have completely transformed society and the economy. They are widely successful in terms of innovation and profitability. In the end, their leaders were able to create a unique culture and mindset from within, based on impossible accomplishments and outstanding grit.

Part 1: Leadership Styles

The word “lead” is derived from the

Anglo-Saxon meaning of

“journey, road, way”.

Mismatched Success

With hundreds of tried-and tested-leadership styles in the business world, one strategy is not all-purpose. Along with different strategies, there are multiple definitions of success, ranging from productivity to profitability and from impact to employee happiness. Industries all operate on their own needs and expectations, making the list of variables that affect leadership and management choices endless. Combining facets from all methods to create a personalized ideal strategy will result in what best works for individuals, teams, and entire institutions and enterprises.

History of Leadership Theories

The way powerful individuals take care of and motivate their followers has evolved immensely over time, adding to a list of theories that continually build upon each other to create the best understanding of effective leadership.

Great Man Theory

Scottish historian, Thomas Carlyle announced that in times of desperate need, a leader fit for the occasion will arise to control events and lead people to safety and success. These individuals were born to lead, as they had innate abilities that qualified them. Today’s society would view this as an extremely primitive and short-sighted theory, but at the time the only political, religious, or military leaders came from the upper class or aristocracy (Cutler).

Trait Theory

The trait theory categorizes qualities displayed by successful leaders. The key was to identify these traits and then recruit the correct individuals into a position of authority. Traits included:

• Adaptability
• Assertiveness
• Ambitious and Achievement Oriented
• Decisive
• Dependable
• Energetic
• Persistent
• Self-Confident

Soft skills were also examined:

• Clever
• Creative
• Diplomatic and Tactful
• Organized
• Persuasive
• Socially Skilled

Behavioral Theory

Trait theory ignores the behavior and actions of a leader, which led to the Behavioral Theory. This theory posits that exceptional leaders are made, not born. In 2005, the University of Minnesota conducted a study by comparing the leadership traits in twins raised together and separately. The team concluded that 30% of leadership traits are based on genetics and 70% of leadership traits are due to environmental factors (Cutler). These findings demonstrate that effective leadership can develop through the teaching, acquisition of relevant skills, and the observation of other successful leaders. In 1939, German psychologist Kurt Lewin identified three distinct types of behavioral leadership styles:

Autocratic:

1. Leader makes all decisions
2. No consultation with team
3. Best for quick decisions (crisis)
4. Cause greatest level of discontent within teams
5. Excessive autocracy leads to revolutions

Democratic:

1. Always ask for team input first
2. Difficult to manage because of multiple opinions
3. Best for effective decision making

Laissez-Faire:

1. Team members have a high degree of decision making
2. Identifies capable members and motivates them
3. No requirement for central coordination of resources
4. Does not work when followers lack self-regulation or motivation

Michigan University conducted a modern take on Lewin’s behavioral theory and to determine methods and principles of leadership that lead to higher levels of satisfaction and productivity. The university derived two focuses: 1. Employee Oriented 2. Product Oriented. The study produced the Blake Mouton Managerial Grid (Cutler).

Figure 1:

Country Club:

1. Ensure people feel comfortable and secure at the workplace
2. Happy employees lead to harder working employees
3. Positive environment but with low productivity due to the lack of direction

Task Management

1. Employees are only a means to get tasks done
2. Employee needs are secondary to efficient production
3. Strongly enforced rules, procedures, and punishments are used to meet goals

Impoverished

1. Ineffective leaders
2. Main concern is avoiding responsibility for any problems that occur
3. Disorganization, dissatisfaction, disharmony

Middle of the Road

1. Does not reach full potential of people or productivit
2. Accepts average performance and believes that is the most anyone can expect

Team Management

1. Employees fully understand the organization’s goals and vision
2. Willingly accept their importance in meeting agreed-upon goals
3. People and performance coincide resulting in organizational success

Situational Leadership

Situational leadership relies on flexibility and adaptability as key factors. No optimal leadership style exists for every situation and therefore needs to be adjusted based on the occasion and needs.

In 1979, Fielder developed the Least Preferred Coworker Model which disregards the fact that individuals can change or improve their management style and skills (Cutler).

Two types of leaders were identified:

1. Task-Oriented Leaders work best under extreme circumstances (favorable or unfavorable settings). They are effective in riding the wave of success, but also catapulting a team out of a deep crisis.
2. Relationship Oriented Leaders function best in neutral, stagnant situations. Three realms assess situational favourableness for a leader:
3. Leader-Member Relations: Level of trust and confidence between leader and followers
4. Task Structure: Type of task being faced (clear/structured vs. vague/unstructured)
5. Leader’s Position: Extent to which a leader has to direct followers and provide reward or punishment

The second model studied, theorized by psychologist Robert House in 1971, looks at motivating followers by:

1. Increasing or interpreting followers’ personal benefits from striving for and achieving the group’s goal

2. Clarifying and clearing the path to achievement of the group goal.

House discovered the influence of two characteristics on leadership styles. His theory lacks in that it does not cover the emotional bond between a leader and his/her subordinate (Cutler).

Follower Characteristics:

• How confident and experienced they are
• How much control group members feel they have to execute and achieve goals
• Attitude towards authority

Workplace Characteristics:

• Kind of task: repetitive/uninteresting, structured (vice versa)
• Definition and understanding of a leader’s authority
• Team spirit

Path-Goal Leadership Styles

1. Directive: clarifies goal, clear direction, expects followers to follow
2. Workplace Characteristics:
3. Unstructured, interesting tasks
4. Clear, formal authority
5. Encourage teamwork
6. Follower Characteristics:
7. Inexperienced members
8. Believe that they lack power
9. Desire to be directed
10. Supportive: concern for followers’ welfare, seeks to provide a supportive working environment
11. Workplace Characteristics
12. Simple, predictable tasks
13. Unclear/weak authority
14. Poor teamwork
15. Follower Characteristics
16. Experienced, confident team members
17. Belief that they have power
18. Rejection of control
19. Participative: consults with followers before any goal related decisions
20. Workplace Characteristics
21. Unstructured complex tasks
22. Authority clear or unclear
23. Teamwork bad or good
24. Follower Characteristics
25. Experienced, confident members
26. Beliefs of power
27. Control over their work
28. Achievement Oriented: sets challenging goals and has confidence in followers achieving them
29. Workplace Characteristics
30. Unstructured, complex or unpredictable tasks
31. Clear, formal authority
32. Teamwork bad or good
33. Follower Characteristics
34. Experienced and confident members
35. Insufficient Power
36. Respect and accept leader’s power

In 1969, the Hersey and Blanchard Model looked at the competence, confidence, and developmental levels of specific followers that should have the greatest influence in determining the most appropriate leadership style (Cutler). Leaders must adapt their approach based on the progression of their followers’ development (maturity). For example, as a follower’s maturity increases, less interaction and feedback should be required from leaders. The criticism of this theory is the time it takes to define and understand the situation before applying the proper leadership style, making it inefficient.

Figure 2:

Maturity Level

Leadership Style

Low: lacks experience, skills, confidence to achieve tasks, unwilling

Telling: leader gives firm instructions and deadlines, closely monitors progress

Medium + limited skills: lacks ability, but happy to complete tasks

Selling: explains tasks, how and why it needs to be done, available for support

Medium + exceptional skills: capable, but lacks confidence or commitment

Participating: leader works with follower, seeks input and encourages commitment

High: capable, confident, committed

Delegating: leader gives responsibility for goal setting and achievement

Contingency theorists created the Tannenbaum and Schmidt Leadership Continuum in 1958 viewing situations as ever-changing, and therefore leadership approaches should also adjust based on the spectrum (Cutler). It studies four leadership styles:

1. Autocratic: No input from team
2. Persuasive: Makes decisions without group input, but wants to persuade followers to buy into the decision
3. Consultative: Followers contribute, but leader makes final decision
4. Democratic: Leader presents problem to group and encourages discussion

Functional Leadership

There are two models to study for functional leadership.

John Adam’s Action Centred Leadership Model states that for a leader to be effective, the leader must meet the needs of the task, team, and individual (Cutler). Leadership functions differ according to the level the leader operates at, and the following styles build upon each other, which means the most attractive leadership is the most difficult to achieve.

1. Team Leadership: clear and defined tasks
2. Achieve task
3. Develop individual
4. Build and maintain team
5. Operational Leadership: Leaders with higher positions oversee multiple team leaders below them
6. Achieve department task
7. Provide opportunities for development
8. Build and maintain department culture
9. Strategic Leadership: leaders of the whole organization with a number of operational leaders reporting to them
10. Deliver strategic vision
11. Ensure opportunities and development for all
12. Build and maintain organization culture

The second model, Kouzes and Posner’s 5 Practices of Exemplary Leadership, based on 20 years of interviews, hundreds of case studies, and questionnaires, defines the five as:

1. Model the Way: lead by example through demonstrating shared values and achieving small success that build confidence, commitment, and consistent progress
2. Inspire Shared Vision: clearly identify the importance of the main goal and motivate by helping others achieve their related aspirations
3. Challenge Process: focused on growth, innovation, experimentation, risk-taking
4. Enable Others to Act: encourage collaboration by promoting shared goals and building trust
5. Encourage Hear: recognize and reward individual work by identifying the value added

Relationship Theory

Leaders who are primarily motivated and concerned with the interactions they have with their followers generally follow the relationship theory. They learn how to motivate their followers’ work habits by changing their followers’ attitudes and commitment through their own vision. This theory is seen as a mutually supportive and rewarding work environment (Cutler).

Transformational Leadership studies a person who creates an attractive vision and can inspire their followers through his/her enthusiasm and energy (Cutler). Leaders need charisma and exceptional communication skills applied powerfully on an emotional level. The leader’s focus on developing a group’s identity that creates a sense of elitism to separate it from other groups. However, charisma is not necessary when the strong ambitions and confidence of the leader are applied to promoting the company goal. The novel Good to Great by Jim Collins studied leadership styles at successful companies like Wells Fargo and Gillette, where the leaders actually lacked charisma yet were seen as modest and humble. These leaders channeled their egos into the ambitions of their organizations, fueling the larger collective goal. In 1994, Bernard Bass, an American scholar in the fields of leadership studies and organizational behavior, identified five styles in transformational leadership:

1. Idealized Influence: express their beliefs and values with a strong sense of purpose
2. Inspirational Motivation: communicate optimism regarding future, confident in the ability to achieve the group’s goal
3. Intellectual Stimulation: seeks different perspectives to problem-solving, encourages creative thinking
4. Individualized Consideration: teaches and coaches people to consider their needs and strengths
5. Idealized Attributes: builds respect, has power and competence, makes sacrifices, and instills pride in followers

The second model studied was the Leader-Member Exchange Theory. This looks at the quality of exchanges with subordinates and leaders. The degree of mutual respect, truth, loyalty, support, and commitment of both the follower and leader determines the amount of influence the leader has on the follower (Cutler). Positive relationships tend to form after subordinates join larger groups in these three stages:

1. Role Taking: Leader assess skills and qualities of follower while offering opportunities to demonstrate capabilities
2. Role Making: Informal and unstructured negotiations to create a role for the follower with a vague promise of a benefit in return for loyalty and commitment to the leader. Building trust is the most crucial part of effective leadership. Having a positive first impression or similarities with the leader helps the follower build a stronger relationship.
3. Routinization: Social exchanges between leaders and followers are established as the follower works hard to retain ingroup membership through trust and respect. It’s important for leaders to demonstrate trust, respect, and openness, but preventing any bias of special treatment to specific individuals proves difficult.

Transformational leaders enable organizations to change management practices, processes, and structure by inspiring collective team success and developing mutually respectful relationships based on common goals. They promote their staff to rethink existing structures and tasks to find the best and most efficient way to get things done. These leaders make sense of any ambiguous aspects of innovation where goals and outcomes are not clear.

Employee Motivation and Productivity Correlation based on Leaders

The most fundamental level of motivation is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs where individuals strive to achieve their basic needs before the complex ones: physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization. A leader holds the responsibility to convert these needs into practical benefits for their employees in order to fully understand how to motivate them and ensure the highest level of productivity in their teams.

McGregor’s X-Y Theory by social psychologist Douglas McGregor who wrote The Human Side of Enterprise in 1960 argued against applying Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to finding the best way to motivate teams. He believed that “people fundamentally disliked work and would avoid it when they could”. McGregor explained that workers feared responsibility, craved security, were naturally unambitious, needed constant supervision, and had to be coerced/directed/threatened to complete tasks. Under these assumptions, Theory X — Authoritarian Management Style is applied where there are mediocre and limited results. Theory Y- Participative Management Style looks at the opposite assumptions. Followers act creatively, seek responsibility and commitment in response to receiving awards for achieving goals (Cutler).

Leaders who can recognize the higher level hierarchical needs of Maslow’s pyramid-like self-esteem and self-actualization for their followers can use their authority to best ensure policies and practices are in place by giving employees the opportunity to realize and achieve those higher needs.

Herzberg, a clinical psychologist, identified a specific theory for motivation based on Hygiene and Motivation Factors. Motivation factors are seen as intrinsic: achievement, recognition for achievement, work itself, responsibility, and growth/advancement. Hygiene factors are extrinsic: similar to actual hygiene factors, a lack of these will cause great difficulty but just having hygiene factors does not necessarily mean success (good hygiene does not always mean good health). A lack of hygiene factors will draw more negative attention than having the factors (Cutler). These factors are seen as an expectation like job security and working conditions. Hygiene factors are the primary cause of unhappiness at work while motivational factors are the primary cause for satisfaction.

Factors relating to work itself such as responsibility and advancement will result in positive, long-term changes in employee attitudes. Changes purely based on achievement or recognition result in short-term changes (achievement and recognition are still important for long term motivation). Motivational factors need to offer individuals the opportunity to reach one’s potential as it fulfills an actuating need (Cutler). Fulfilling the first three levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy proves to have zero to little effect on the potential to motivate. Employees who achieve the top tiers of self-esteem and actualization experience greater job satisfaction, therefore focusing on helping employees reach these more intricate needs will help create the motivation necessary. Maslow mentions that gratified needs are not active motivators. Mckinsey Quarterly published in 2009 that non-financial motivators (praise, strong communication with leaders, opportunities for leadership roles) were more effective than financial incentives (Cutler). The opposite of job satisfaction is no satisfaction. Happiness and motivation are seen as interchangeable when studying the best way for leaders to encourage their teams. How people behave is influenced by the way they think and feel. If they feel demoralized and unhappy, they are likely to be less creative and productive, therefore will not achieve any level of self-actualization. Positive psychology looks at the means of motivating people and enabling them to realize their potential within the workplace. By achieving this, productivity, engagement, and retention all increase due to the overall positive experiences and meaningful work assigned.

John Adam’s Equity Theory sees employee motivation affected most by whether he/she believes the benefits/rewards equal the amount of effort put into his/her work. This is the most fluid model because the degree of motivation can always change. It is a universal perception that equity of treatment is important (Cutler).

Exchange Ideology determines the extent individuals put effort into their work dependent on how the organization responds to their inputs. Those with strong exchange ideology will work hard only if treated fairly. Those with weak exchange ideology will work the same regardless of rewards or treatment. Creditor Ideology is when an individual contributes more than what is expected and prefers to have others in their debt. Leaders need to build powerful, mutually beneficial relationships as teams need positive expectations (Cutler).

Successful Leadership Qualities

In 2001, Boal and Hooijberg defined strategic leadership as the creation and maintenance of the following three qualities:

1. Absorptive Capacity: Ability to learn through recognizing and assimilating new information later utilizing these abilities to lead changes
2. Adaptive Capacity: Ability to be strategically flexible in the face of changing environments
3. Managerial Wisdom: Ability to perceive when the environment is changing and take action

In 1974, Ralph Stogdill wrote the Handbook on Leadership explaining the various definitions of leadership styles that work towards achieving the leader’s overall vision with focuses in the following:

• Hyper focused on group process
• Personality and its effects
• Art of Inducing Compliance
• Exercise of Influence
• Actor Behavior
• Form of Persuasion
• Power Relation
• Instrument of Goal Achievement
• Effect of Interaction
• Differentiated Role
• Initiation of Structure

Five Essential Skills for Strategic Leaders:

1. Anticipate future threats and opportunities
2. Challenge the status quo and work outside of comfort zone
3. Create learning organization
4. Make decisions
5. Seek stakeholder buy-in

Emotional Intelligence

Goleman’s Four Dimensions of Emotional Intelligence include:

1. Self Awareness — self-confidence
2. Self Management — optimism, transparency, adaptability
3. Social Awareness — empathy
4. Relationship Management — inspirational, influence, conflict management

Leaders of high-profit organizations exhibited empathy, self-regard (respect for others and a strong sense of identity), and adaptability (can realistically solve issues). Psychometric tests represent a person’s thinking, feeling, and pattern of behavior while providing insight into how a person will act in certain situations. The following are the Big 5:

1. Openness to experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious)
2. Conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless)
3. Extroversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitarily/reserved)
4. Agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. cold/unkind)
5. Neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident)

These can be applied by looking at leader emergence (recognized by others as having leadership potential) and leader effectiveness (how someone holding a leadership position performs in terms of motivating the team to achieve goals). Extroversion was seen as the most important trait of effective leadership, as these leaders appropriately assert themselves in necessary situations. The second most important trait was conscientiousness (more relevant to leader emergence than effectiveness), where the facilitation of work is key (Cutler).

Influence

Strong leaders must sell the company mission and product to their employees which takes bits and pieces of transformational leadership. It is largely based on Bass’s five traits of transformational leadership previously mentioned. These individuals show confidence in the group’s overall goal and encourage a diversity of ways to solve problems while challenging normative, traditional processes. People are influenced by others because they respect and recognize a certain power and competence this leader exudes. An effective, influential leader needs to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of their team to definitively promote productivity and build relationships. Successful leaders need dominance and prestige based on experiments from Kellogg School of Management, by Robert Livingston and both help to create a strong, respectable leader. Again, these transformative leaders are seen as trustworthy, ambitious, dependable, and forward-looking.

Decisiveness

A balance between an autocratic leader (best during times of crisis) and the leadership styles of selling and persuading from Hersey and Blanchard Model, results in effective decision making by the leader. This individual recognizes the competence and commitment of their team, but explains delegated tasks and encourages clarification for perfect results. These leaders are able to make quick decisions, assign roles without input because they already understand their teams’ skills, and think of the overall success of the company when crucial events arise.

Pacemaker

Employees make or break companies. They are the day to day workers who engineer the backend software, sell to clients, create global marketing campaigns, and balance the financial quarterly reports. Employees expect to be taken care of and provided the benefits and necessities they need to succeed such as a competitive salary, recognition, and challenges to prove themselves. Leaders need to push employees one step further and help them reach their maximum performance and happiness. Following the study of motivation and hygiene factors and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, employees feel their most fulfilled in terms of individual success and growth, when they are given long term goals and are motivated to achieve them. It is crucial for individuals to feel needed and recognized for their work. They want to know that the work they are doing is important to the company and that their role is key to its success. Such as with any sports team, the coach is just as important as the players. Creating a clear path to success and identifying the milestones along the way, while simultaneously instructing and reviewing the work is what defines an effective leader and challenger.

Part 2: Psychology of Psychopathy

The Greek roots to psychopathy:

Psyche: the soul, mind, spirit which occupies the physical body

Pathos: suffering or disease

Together this creates the Greek translation of “sick mind”.

A Non-Psychopath Intro to Psychopathy

1 out of 100 people are known to be psychopaths in this world. 15–20% of the prison population are psychopaths (Ronson). Interestingly enough, they are known to receive their parole and/or are released three times faster than non-psychopaths. As mentioned earlier, 4% of leaders with substantial decision making are psychopaths in today’s business world. These individuals can be viewed as cold, callous, and contradictory. Their patterns of remorselessness and lack of restraint can be described as “insanity without delirium” (Hare).

The difference between a sociopath and psychopath is nurture versus nature. Sociopaths are created based on social forces and early experiences. Psychopaths are based on biological and genetic factors that contribute to development. Psychopathy is a cluster of related symptoms, therefore, defining it as a syndrome. These “psychopaths” lack the qualities that humans need to live in social harmony and therefore cause chaos within many communities and teams (Hare).

Inception of Psychopath Test

Canadian experimental and cognitive psychologist Dr. Robert Hare began studying the inner workings of repeated male offenders in the 1970s. He was closely examining what drove these individuals to continually brutally hurt innocent people. While he was based in a prison for several months conducting multiple experiments, he noticed a stark difference in two specific groups that were later identified as 1. Having psychopathic traits 2. Not having psychopathic traits. Hare defines psychopathy as the literal absolute absence of empathy. The definition of empathy is “the ability to construct mental or emotional feeling of another person”. That humanistic trait of empathy is replaced with the joy of manipulating people without experiencing any remorse or guilt. Hare sees these individuals as lacking all things that make someone human. Psychopaths exhibit emotional poverty where they are limited in the range and depths of their feelings. They occasionally show short-lived displays of feeling. These individuals tend to evoke proto-emotions which is the primitive response to immediate needs and are highly reactive to perceived insults which can lead to “temper tantrums” (commonly displayed by multiple infamous CEOs). Outbursts are extremely short and once they are over, the psychopath continues to act like nothing happened. They are completely aware and know exactly what they are doing during their eruption since behavior is a choice, but simply do not care about the consequences of their actions. Psychopaths are also distant and feel no serious connection to any obligations or commitments made. Hare believes that the absence of empathy will always result in malevolence (Hare). However is malevolence always a negative aspect?

Hare never considered character traits as something taught. As many psychologists have studied, traits (specifically leadership traits) are 30% innate and 70% taught. He felt that the same statistics would apply to those who conducted violent crimes believing that if there are some positive innate traits that create exceptional leaders and individuals, there would be a parallel in the similar number of traits that create a link between those more criminally active. As his studies continued, he noticed a difference in impulsivity and capacity for empathy or guilt. He saw that people have different intensities of traits responsible or related to crime (Hare).

Perplexing and Puzzling Prisoner Participants

One experiment consisted of showing the inmates horrific pictures such as graphic murders or other uncomfortable, disturbing images versus positive ones. He noticed that the group displaying “psychopathic” traits displayed zero reaction to the negative photos. They treated both sets of photos the same — neutral. A second experiment gave inmates a shock test. While the regular prisoner would have high brain activity and intense blood flow leading up to the shock and during, the second peculiar group with psychopathic traits lacked any emotional arousal or anticipatory fear while waiting for the shock to occur. The prisoners had the option to either be shocked right away and “get it over with” or wait a period of time before receiving the shock. The more common choice was to receive the shock immediately, but the second group didn’t mind anticipating the pain, still with no emotion (Hare).

Hare conducted brain scans during all these experiences and noticed a significant difference in actual brain activity between the two groups of non-psychopaths and psychopaths. Hare’s Lab found striking differences between the psychopath and non-psychopathic brain. The amygdala holds a set of neurons deep in the emotional part of the brain’s medial temporal lobe where it contains conceptual representations for semantic knowledge and plays a key role in processing emotions. It forms part of the limbic system that consists of a complex network of nerves in the brain that are concerned with instinct and mood. It controls basic emotions such as fear, pleasure, anger and drives. The amygdala is best known for its “fight or flight” response. Hare discovered that the amygdala underperformed during these experiences in the second group with psychopathic traits (Hare).

Psychopathy is described as the opposite of having any sort of anxiety and the amygdala serves as the hub of fear and anxiety. Psychopaths scientifically do not suffer from anxiety because they biologically cannot experience it. Fear is incomplete, therefore they do not find activities that would normally deter a sound-minded person as unpleasant. This is also described as being “emotionally deaf”. It can be compared to the inability to teach a colorblind person what the color red looks like (Spain). It is nearly impossible to teach feelings or emotions to someone physically incapable. Psychopaths see any social exchange as an opportunity or test of wills of the other person. They build relationships with others to manipulate and essentially “win” the game of cunningness. Psychopaths can detect vulnerabilities in others and know exactly where to press the right buttons to break someone. They lack remorse or guilt because they rationalize their behavior with excuses, deny it happened at all, or even play the victim.

These individuals fail to understand or comprehend emotion through words as well. In another study by Hare, he found that when psychopaths were shown the word “plant” (neutral word) and “death” (emotional word) that their brain waves reacted exactly the same. Mentally-sound individuals would have shown a spike in their brain activity because they feel a strong emotional connection with the word “death”. However to psychopaths, words are just words. This enables them to act extremely two-faced and say anything to please their victims without feeling an emotional connection. They don’t intuitively realize the impact of their words on others and use their listener’s reactions as “cue cards” to decide how they should react or feel in that certain situation (Spain).

Hare and his team compared the processing of hemispheres in a psychopath’s brain and a non-psychopathic brain. One of the greatest facets of a psychopath is their incredible ability to storytell and draw their victims in with distractions like excessive hand movements or props to hide their true selves. Non-psychopaths enjoy storytelling for the purpose of excitement and joy, but psychopaths use storytelling as a tactic with the motivation behind as power and self-gratification. The problem with many of the lies and narratives that psychopaths spit out is the contradictory nature. One of Hare’s patients who scored extremely high on the Psychopath Checklist (in more detail later) exclaimed the statement, “I didn’t kill anyone, but yes I blew her head right off”. The left cerebral hemisphere focuses on the processing of information analytically and sequentially like languages. The right hemisphere looks at information as a whole, perception and spatial relations, imagery, and emotional experience. The brain separates these actions because if something was to be processed back and forth between the hemispheres constantly, it would become inefficient and cause delays in the individual’s feedback. Each hemisphere focuses on their delegated tasks and then sends the information through once finished. Hare concluded that in psychopaths, their brains work bilaterally which leads to an “inefficient line of authority”. This means that information on the right hemisphere and emotions on the left hemisphere are never connected. The line holding the two hemispheres is divided and overall the brain is unfocused which leads to psychopath’s speech becoming poorly integrated and monitored. They can speak for a long time to someone, but most of the time it lacks any clarity or logic. The way psychopaths string sentences together is defective (Hare).

Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL)

Hare became intrigued by studying this smaller group displaying psychopathic traits and decided to further his studies. Psychopathy is not recognized as a psychiatric or psychological disorder. He noticed that there was no measure to determine the level of psychopathy in individuals and set out to create a proper test that could be used to identify those with “psychopathic traits”. What resulted from years of his studies was the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL), a psychological assessment tool used to assess the presence of psychopathy in individuals in the 1970s. It contains a 20-item inventory of perceived personality traits and recorded behaviors. Hare emphasizes that unlicensed individuals should not freely go around and announce others as “psychopaths” based on his checklist. He teaches classes on how to apply the test and warns that results can only be considered valid if administered by a suitably qualified and experienced clinician under scientifically controlled and licensed, standardized conditions. Hare hopes this assessment helps identify repeat offenders before they actually commit a crime. Curiosity reports the PCL as the “single best predictor of violent behavior” which is what began Hare’s study of psychopathy when he was stationed at the prison (Hare).

This assessment is graded on a three-point scale. 0 points applied if the trait is nonapplicable. 1 point applied if the trait “somewhat applies”. 2 points applied if the trait “consistently applies”. The list is scored 0–40 points, 30 or more points acting as the threshold for being identified as a psychopath. Hare saw psychopathy as a spectrum but evidently saw a cutoff for a true psychopath. The last three on the list represent a stronger look on criminal psychopaths and may not definitively apply to subclinical psychopaths (the average person).

The Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL), consists of the following 20 traits:

1. Glib and Superficial Charm: smooth-talking, but truly shallow and insincere
2. Grandiose establishment of self: ostentatious self-image
3. Constant need for stimulation
4. Pathological liar: compulsive, obsessive
5. Cunning and Manipulative
6. Lack of Remorse or Guilt
7. Shallow Affect: Superficial emotional responsiveness
8. Callous and Lack Empathy
9. Parasitic Lifestyle: intentional, manipulative, selfish, and exploitative financial dependence on others as reflected in a lack of motivation, low self-discipline
10. Poor Behavioral Controls
11. Sexually Promiscuous
12. Early Behavior Problems
13. Lack Realistic Long Term Goals
14. Overly Impulsive
15. Irresponsible
16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
17. Many short term marital relationships
18. History of Juvenile Delinquency
19. Revocation of Conditional Release: a need to obey certain rules before freedoms are returned ex. Canceled parole
20. Criminal Versatility

Following trait five from Hare’s PCL, manipulation often looks like this:

1. Assess utility, weaknesses, and defense of those around them
2. Manipulate others to bond with them to get what they want
3. Abandon those manipulate (targets) and move on to the next victim or more realistically “move up” in the work hierarchy

The PCL is now used by experts, forensic psychologists, criminal profilers to influence how prisoners should be paroled or dealt with during court hearings or in prison. Those certified by Robert Hare’s Certificate of Attendance can even play a part in having the final decision of applying the death penalty (Hare).

Reasoning the Psychopathic Brain

Adding number 17 with 5, psychopaths enjoy forming superficial, short term relationships with others before dropping them and moving after achieving their goal. As well as displaying artificial empathy and charm, psychopaths can determine what others think about themselves and reinforce it by saying phrases like “I’m just like you” and gain your trust to further manipulate (Hare).

One strong motivator of psychopathic tendencies consists of seeking rewards (Wired). The psychopathic brain scientifically releases four times as much dopamine (a neurotransmitter responsible for happiness and pleasure) when receiving a reward than the average person. A significant difference. They crave validation and recognition because of their fragile self-esteem that is fueled by their self-centered feeling and entitlement. Psychopaths tend to care more about positive consequences if they reap the rewards. They become so enthralled on that single reward that they are absorbed in their own tunnel vision to do whatever is necessary to recreate that addictive feeling of intense dopamine. With negative consequences however, criminal Psychologist David Lykke found that psychopaths lacked fear which causes them to act impulsively, engage in risky behavior, and ignore the negative consequences. However, ignoring negative consequences can be found beneficial in life or death situations which is also something noted by Lykke (Spain).

Jon Ronson’s The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry

A famous Welsh author, journalist, and documentary filmmaker, Jon Ronson has always shown an interest in trying to understand why outliers are the way they are. He is often described as a Gonzo journalist: a style of journalism that is written without claims of objectivity. He produces informal, but skeptical investigations of controversial fringe politics and science by interviewing and following extremists (Them: Adventures with Extremists), people who believed they could walk through walls with the right mental preparation (The Men Who Stare at Goats), those who have been publicly shamed on the internet (So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed), and psychopaths (The Psychopath Test) in 2011).

Ronson attended a Robert Hare class where he presented his famous, now over thirty years old PCL. The gonzo journalist became infatuated with the idea that psychopaths are so commonly found in our daily lives. In his book, he explores the idea that many corporate and governmental leaders qualify as potential psychopaths and begins to lightly use the Hare test to see if he can prove it. The novel chronicles his interviews with psychopaths around the world including Albert Dunlap of Sunbeam (the magazine Fast Company speculated was a psychopath), Toto Constant the founder of a Haitian death squad, and a young average man detained in Broadmoor Psychiatric Hospital (the highest-security psychiatric hospital in England) who claims he “faked madness” and now cannot get out. Throughout the book, Ronson raises the question of “Where can the line be drawn between sanity, insanity, and eccentricity?”. He suggests that society should not judge people by their “maddest edges” or assume that today’s “normal” society is as rational as people would like to think (Ronson).

Ronson meets with Tony, the man who faked madness so well, he was placed in the highest-security level psychiatric hospital for over 12 years. The story goes that Tony was arrested during a bar fight and while he was awaiting trial, an inmate advised him to pretend that he was “crazy” so that he could be sent to “a cushy hospital where nurses will bring you pizzas” (Ronson). When it was time for his psychiatric evaluation, he explained that he “got sexual pleasure from crashing cars into walls” and that he “wanted to watch women as they die because it would make [him] feel more normal” which is something he recited from a Ted Bundy Biography they had in the prison library (Ronson). When he arrived at the hospital, he realized the terrible mistake he had made and tried to explain that he had lied and was not mentally ill whatsoever. “Faking madness” could also be seen as something an actual psychopath would do as it is cunning and manipulative. Tony also fits other qualifications of the PCL as described by Ronson such as a sense of professional charm, grandiose sense of self-worth, and lack of empathy. Tony tries to explain to Ronson that he is not a psychopath and mentions that he feels remorse for his crime, but Ronson feels conflicted and that Tony is perhaps faking his guilt. Ronson concluded that it was exceptionally more difficult to prove sanity than insanity.

The curious journalist spoke with Anthony Maden, a professor and forensic psychiatrist in charge of the Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder unit at Broadmoor Hospital. He believes that psychopaths are framed as a different type of species using Hare’s list and quickly observes that anyone can get an alarmingly high score on the list by being “impulsive and irresponsible or by coldly planning to do something” which causes very different people, some sane some not, with the same score.

As Hare specifically mentions at the end of every interview and class session, the list should only be considered legit when conducted by a licensed industry professional. Interviews post the release of Ronson’s bestseller, he warns readers to not get caught up in diagnosing someone without really knowing them. He felt avoiding confirmation bias when meeting people with the list in the back of his mind difficult and became obsessed with the checklist which made him question his own sanity.

Application of Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) in the Workforce

Today, the corporate business is more competitive and stressful than ever and some could say psychotic. The top four career choices for psychopaths:

1. CEO
2. Attorney
3. Media Personality
4. Salesperson

A study at the University of San Diego found that 21% of participants in a study out of a total of 261 corporate professionals had significant levels of psychopathic traits. In 2006, Snakes in Suits by Robert Hare found that 3.9% of C-Suite executives had psychopathic traits and jumped to 12% in 2012. In 2010, it was found that there were three times as many psychopaths in executive or CEO roles than the regular population (Hare).

Chief of Psychopathy

Al Dunlap, an infamous cutthroat ex-CEO of Sunbeam justified these psychopathic tendencies such as a lack of empathy towards employees or the need for constant stimulation as a strategy to succeed in business. With society’s foundation of pure capitalism, Dunlap is not wrong. One writer described today’s business setting as being a “dysfunctional capitalistic society”. A researcher from the University of San Diego described himself as “a cat in a world of mice” (Spain). Leaders who exhibit impression management (a conscious or subconscious process in which people attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction) are more likely to become leaders. Manipulating and charming others’ comes with ease to psychopaths which plays a part in the high population of psychopaths in leadership positions. The way capitalism is structured, it enables the physical manifestation of brain anomalies like psychopathy. Psychopaths have the intellectual capacity to understand the essential rules of society and can identify right from wrong but choose to ignore them.

Subclinical and Mediocre Psychopathic Employees

In the workforce (excluding C-Suite positions), psychopaths cause counterproductive behavior by bullying others and creating conflict which then lowers overall employee well being. A behavioral issues study in 2016 by Babiak, found those who scored high on psychopathy had overall poorer performance reviews, but better communication skills (Spain). They excelled in strategic thinking and creativity but predictably lacked in teamwork and performance approval even though they are motivated by rewards and validation. The means of receiving these rewards are not always acceptable. Psychopaths thrive in chaos and recognize that others cannot survive in stressful, anxious environments so they tend to create more disorder to weed out those insignificant to them.

Part 3: Million Dollar Ideas: Genius, Innovative, and a lot of Crazy

“The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do”.

How to Measure Success

Success is different to everyone even on a business or corporate finance level. Company success could be seen as employee retention rate, quarterly profit margins, or the revenue produced at the end of each year. After looking at what motivates employees and what differentiates long term successful companies versus those who failed, the success chain begins on a very basic level of effective leadership. The way superiors treat and guide their teams will determine how happy and healthy employees feel at their workplace. Productivity and the level of innovation are scientifically related to employee happiness. The more products created and ideated will determine the profits and longevity of the company. The core of a successful business is the leadership effect on the employees.

Figure 3:

Why Insanity is Good

Dunlap justified his “psychopathic” traits to Ronson as ways that helped him lead and strengthen his company. Hundreds of founders who have been widely successful due to their extreme methods of management as well as their hypnotizing ability to sell practically everything and anything can also identify with psychopathic traits as positives. Entrepreneurs and founders of great companies have clear personality types and specific traits that played a huge role in their success. These individuals are found to be assertive, driven, ambitious, charismatic, and persistent. Psychopaths, leaders, and entrepreneurs have a shocking number of traits in common. It is important to keep these four attributes in mind when analyzing the leaders in this section:

1. Reward Driven

Individuals who seek long term goals have ambitions greater than the average individual. They seek to change the world, change an industry, and change the way people act on a regular basis. They are not always looking for monetary rewards or fame; they simply want to achieve what they set out to do and feel fulfilled. Psychopaths feel a physical change in their mental state when they receive that reward they had been working on reaching and therefore explain why he or she becomes so focused on one subject matter creating tunnel vision for themselves. Due to becoming so absorbed by their one goal, this can sometimes lead to a false reality. They will unintentionally distort real life to fit their needs or landscape to meet their expectations and demand others to follow. Viewing life differently from others can be beneficial since it allows people to push the boundaries of impossibility; however it can also cause unrealistic expectations and intangible results. Having this visionary aspect can inspire others. Employees, friends, and the public become enthralled with the same long term vision and this can help bring a large group of people towards the same goal. There is a clear understanding of how important rewards and recognition are on a psychological level for employee motivation and the explanation for psychopaths acting the way they do.

1. Influential and Charming

One of the key personality traits of a psychopath manipulation. Manipulation can be seen as positive in many cases. Some might twist it into the word “influential” or “enticing”. It is truly a skill to coerce someone into an idea or action and should not be taken for granted. The negative component of manipulation is when one side benefits and the other receives consequences. Entrepreneurs are often seen as extremely charismatic and charming. In any business setting, people will acknowledge that charm can get you through most doors. It is the ability of someone who can “turn it on” in a second and make the other person feel special and acknowledged for their own personal benefit. He or she can “put on a show” and go from an observer to the most interesting person in the room. These individuals are known to be cunning which helps them persuade and build relationships on both a surface and deeper level (depending on what they are trying to get). In addition to influencing others, they have a strong sense of awareness for other people. They can read an individual in seconds and understand their needs and wants from a simple conversation. Outsiders might think this individual lacks complete social awareness because they do not act particularly normal in large settings but again, psychopaths are self-aware (or on the journey to self-awareness) they choose to simply ignore it.

1. Strategic Risk Takers

Effective leaders take strategic risks upon assessing all available information. He or she is extremely detail orientated and strives for perfection. Everything is done for the company or greater goal. Impulsivity from a psychopathic perspective can be twisted into a strong leadership skill where that individual can make decisions quickly without overthinking the problem. However, of course making these judgments with a clouded mindset or not thoroughly thinking of the consequences lead to more issues.

1. Intense Challengers

Analyzing the motivators from Herzberg and Maslow, employees find self-fulfillment extremely important in a work setting. They desire meaningful work and recognition for their effort to feel important in their team and company. Employees want to be accepted in their field and given opportunities to prove themselves with larger projects or the chance to be a leader. Individuals appreciate being challenged and feel greater rewards and benefits from more difficult tasks and high-pressure events. Effective leaders can bring up thought-provoking subjects to their teams and create a bit of controlled chaos to encourage abstract thinking and fuel innovation.

Figure 4:

Steve Jobs of Apple

“Did Alexander Bell do any market research before he invented the telephone?”

From a young age, Jobs displayed outstanding intelligence as he tested at a 10th grade level when he was only in the 4th. He had peculiar behaviors such as teaching himself to stare for long periods of time without blinking and would burst into incredibly fast-paced monologues during uncomfortable silences. Young Jobs always felt “special” and his peers and family agreed. Even during adolescence, peers and family members saw something different about him. They described him as having a big darkness around him that was full of angst. Before high school Jobs decided to stop believing in God when the all-mighty entity failed to answer his questions about the meaning of life (Isaacson).

Some reasoned that Jobs compulsion for control over everything and anything was due to the fact he was adopted as a baby. Jobs has been very open about his feelings of abandonment and can see the connection of wanting to control his environment to make up for the deprivation he experienced in childhood. Adding to the list of his obsessions, Jobs was a perfectionist about every product he worked on and saw himself as an elite artist, intolerant of those who could not meet his demands. People despised working with him because of how cruel, spoiled, tyrannical, and temperamental he was. However, a large number are still grateful for the opportunity to have been in the presence of a true enlightened visionary. He came off as frighteningly cold, but his sheer magnetism and ability to charm those he loved and hated was an incredible skill.

His charisma was unique. He had a way of both flattering and intimidating people to convince them of doing anything for him. It was masterful his technique of cajoling others by capitalizing on their weak points for his own benefit. Jobs could identify psychological strengths and vulnerabilities and action an “emotional towel-snap, perfectly aimed” to anyone he came in contact with. Subordinates tend to crave any charismatic individual’s approval more knowing they have the ability to crush them in seconds. This applied to the Apple employees. In large crowds though, he was seen as antisocial and rude. He lacked empathy as he spoke candidly and brutally honest to everyone. The absolute force of his personality was enough to change minds and the fact he embraced and internalized his vision to change technology for the better, convinced others to believe the same thing. He saw his products as beautiful works of art and an extension of himself. Jobs made his goal clear: “Do the greatest thing possible or even greater”.

From the very beginning, Jobs had a recurring issue that his peers described as his “reality distortion field” (Isaacson). To avoid confrontation, situations, or failures, he could “will it out of existence”. He believed reality was malleable and told others that if they “pretend to be completely in control, people will assume you are”. The incredible part is that because of this fault of creating a false future, he was actually able to change reality for the better with Apple products. Employees would complain amongst themselves that Steve took credit for their ideas or work without second-guessing it.

Jobs had a tendency of impulsiveness in his actions and lying. It was in his nature to mislead and be secretive, especially about personal matters. He would often make bad judgments without thinking including attacking others’ ideas calling them “worthless” or “stupid” simply because he did not understand it. Guy Kawasaki, previously the chief evangelist at Apple reflects his days at work where “you had to prove yourself every day, or Steve Jobs got rid of you”. Throughout high school and college he would propose ultimatums to his family in dire situations. He forced his parents to let him attend Reed College otherwise he would not continue with higher education. The same “do or die” mentality was ingrained at Apple when he would ask an employee to do something and if they failed to take on the task, he would ask them to leave. Despite lacking control over his behaviors, he was on a compulsive search for self-awareness. He found himself very emotionally attuned and could read others well. He could always tell if someone was “faking it”. Despite screening himself and others’ emotions, he chose to ignore the results and would still treat others with brutal, harsh words. He knew how other people saw the way he acted but did not care. Jobs was infamous for his very public tantrums over mundane, unimportant issues such as his former business partner, Steve Wozniak receiving the “#1 Employee Badge” and himself the “#2 Employee Badge” (Isaacson).

Steve Jobs’s intense vision for the company was embedded through everything and everyone associated with Apple. He believed that “a great company was one so imbued with innovative creativity that it would outlive them”. Despite attacking his employees when he did not understand something, they later realized Jobs was asking them to explain their reasoning and process. He wanted his employees to prove themselves and was always challenging them to work smarter. Jobs was excellent at pushing the boundaries of aesthetics and tech and ultimately created the perfect combination. During Apple’s journey, Jobs was skilled at courting huge executives from other companies to join the company with his persuasive and passionate personality. When the media questioned his reasoning for creating new products he outrightly said “If you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will”. That mentality of thinking of the other opponent and being aware of that allowed Apple to become one of the most successful companies of all time.

Is Steve Jobs a Psychopath?

Jobs checks off 13/20 points from Hare’s Checklist:

• Glib and Superficial Charm
• Grandiose establishment of self
• Constant need for stimulation
• Pathological liar
• Cunning and Manipulative
• Lack of Remorse or Guilt
• Shallow Affect
• Callous and Lack Empathy
• Poor Behavioral Controls
• Lack Realistic Long Term Goals
• Overly Impulsive
• Many short term marital relationships
• History of Juvenile Delinquency

Elon Musk of Tesla

“We’re changing the world and changing history, and you either commit or you don’t.”

The “do or die, but don’t give up” mentality motivates Musk to be one of the most hardworking individuals in the high-tech industry. He is infamous for his occasional absurd tweet and announcing long-shot financial projections and sci-fi mass-marketed products, but he is overall applauded for his revolution on the sustainable luxury and affordable car industry while sharing the technology so others can replicate the models and work to create an overall sustainable future.

Musk explains his difficult childhood of being bullied in South Africa and eventually moving to the States to escape and pursue higher education. His upbringing was emotionally challenging since his parents divorced at a young age and he learned to become independent early on. He was not close to either parent and found school unnecessary and full of lazy students. Musk described his neighborhood as a “hypermasculine community” and he was the geeky outsider. The benefit of his Laissez-Faire parenting created an idea that he was “capable of anything” (Vance). Elon always had a strong work ethic, firm views, and an entrepreneurial spirit (he used to sell exploding objects in South Africa). He read ten hours a day and was obsessed with learning as much as possible. His ability to visualize anything and everything from images to algorithmic relationships and numbers gave him the power of photogenic memory. Elon would become so engrossed with whatever project he was working on that when people attempted to talk to him, they thought he was deaf. He could easily block out the world and dedicate all his concentration to single tasks.

Due to his “lack of control” during his early years, Musk cherishes and strives to control as much as he can now. In the one autobiography he authorized, he gave the author an ultimatum saying he had the final say and wanted to oversee the way he was portrayed. The author described him during their initial meetings as a “control freak”. He also has irrational fears such as Google building a fleet of AI robots that will destroy mankind (Vance).

Elon’s work ethic is strict. He lives by extreme self-quotes that push him to the limits of science. At the age of 14 he already had an ultra-logical mission statement for his life, “The only thing that makes sense to do is strive for greater collective enlightenment”. He longs to be Earth’s savior and believes the future of mankind is waiting on Mars. This clear vision is consistent in everything Musk does. Elon’s life purpose is to morph humans into space colonizers no matter the obstacles faced (including removing human consciousness if necessary). He strives to adhere to the impossible and expects nothing less from his employees including long hours and weekends. His ex-wife described him as someone who “does what he wants and is relentless about it” (Vance).

Tesla and SpaceX only hire the best and those who genuinely believe in the mission of the company and the end goal — incredibly sustainable transportation and habitability on Mars. Prospective employees must be as passionate as Elon. He is relentless about recruiting the right individuals. Musk respects people who continue to work harder than after they have been told no. However he does not like to be proven wrong himself. He exudes optimism and accepts failure, but keeps pushing forward. When handed a solution that contradicts his own, he becomes furious and employees are known to receive “the kiss of death”. He is known to shout “I don’t really give a damn what you think!” around the office when issues with current processes or future plans are brought up (Vance). The word “no” does not exist in his mind.

His relationships with employees, or lack thereof, are all on the surface. He is extremely brilliant and understands everything about everything. Musk is involved with every facet of his companies and is able to gather individuals to work harder in the face of competition. However, he struggles to consciously manage his criticism of others. He lacks empathy and fails to see things from the other side. His frustrations and outbursts are often caused by waiting for other people to finish tasks, fix mistakes, or not having immediate answers. Musk becomes vexed when he is not publicly acknowledged for his contribution to projects and will take credit for others’ work. His biggest enemy is himself based on the way he treats his fragile relationships and how he presents himself to the public as a callous extremist who fails to meet promises that some believe is all a scam.

His massive ego is exposed as he continues to risk destroying dreams by refusing to reconcile with reality. He has a strong pain tolerance and under high-pressure situations can become irrational and hyperbolic. Musk has an innate ability to read people and prey on their fears and self-hatred to get what he wants. He is known to outmaneuver, think, and execute anyone who crosses paths with him making him a fierce competitor in the business world.

Is Elon Musk a Psychopath?

Musk matches 13/20 points from Hare’s Checklist:

• Glib and Superficial Charm: smooth-talking, but truly shallow and insincere
• Grandiose establishment of self: ostentatious self-image
• Constant need for stimulation
• Pathological liar: compulsive, obsessive
• Cunning and Manipulative
• Lack of Remorse or Guilt
• Shallow Affect: superficial emotional responsiveness
• Callous and Lack Empathy
• Poor Behavioral Controls
• Sexually Promiscuous
• Lack Realistic Long Term Goals
• Overly Impulsive
• Many short term marital relationships

Jeff Bezos of Amazon

“What we need to do is always lean into the future; when the world changes around you and when it changes against you — what used to be a tail wind is now a head wind — you have to lean into that and figure out what to do because complaining isn’t a strategy.”

At three years old, Bezos shocked his parents when he had disassembled his own crib with a screwdriver. From a young age, Bezos always dreamed of being an inventor. He displayed incredible moments of intelligence early on and excelled in academics beating out his classmates (Stone).

Bezos is known for taking everything to the extreme — especially his personality traits. His drive, intelligence, ambition, passion, and relentlessness are accompanied by volcanic temper tantrums, callousness, and lack of empathy. Employees named his cruel, melodramatic outbursts as “nutters” and emphasized his forehead vessel popping out. Bezos’s composure is described as “calm in the eyes of a storm. Ice water runs through his veins” (Stone). His volatility meets new heights during times of crisis and will lash out at executives by accusing them of incompetence and dishonesty. A cacophony of insults can quickly turn into his infamous booming, uninhibited laugh. Despite his extremely shrewd personality, he is able to persuade everyone around him to believe and work towards his grandiose and improbable goals. His “convincing gospel” is often preceded by outlandish ideas that are often described as “feverish dreams” (Stone). Bezos is anything but a conventional thinker. Everything is open to discussion and he is only bound by the laws of physics as his limits. Even though Bezos rarely shows any kind gesture or sign of empathy, he is entirely self-aware of his actions and behavior. He is characteristically secretive (withheld data) and reminds his employees that he wields the ultimate power. There was once a manager who installed televisions into all the conference rooms and Bezos was so furious by this waste of money that he intended to mock and make an example out of that individual by removing all the screens but left the mounts on the wall. He was brutal to employees who made mistakes or delays: “I’m sorry, did I take my stupid pills today?”, “Are you lazy or just incompetent?”, “If I hear that idea again, I’m going to have to kill myself” (Stone). Bezos was both a mercenary and missionary for Amazon.

Bezos generated a nonstop flood of ideas on how to improve customer experience and anticipate needs. He has a fierce competitive streak which allows him to be one step ahead from those trying to beat out Amazon. He hates losing. His ability to drive and motivate employees without getting attached personally enables him to find the best employees for his company without any regard for someone’s wellbeing. A previous employee described the expected work performance as “If you’re not good, Jeff will chew you up and spit you out. And if you’re good, he will jump on your back and ride you into the ground”. His employees were treated as expendable resources — “Life’s too short to hang out with people who aren’t resourceful” (Stone).

Amazon is hell-bent on its company goals because of Bezos’s long term vision and multi-decade long projects. He is willing to take short term losses for long term gains as well as any opportunity to destroy competition. Jeff completed his incredulous goal of becoming the store for everything for everyone and accomplished even more along the way with Amazon Web Services and the Kindle.

Is Jeff Bezos a Psychopath?

Bezos shows 12/20 psychopathic traits from Hare’s Checklist:

• Glib and Superficial Charm: smooth-talking, but truly shallow and insincere
• Grandiose establishment of self: Ostentatious self-image
• Constant need for stimulation
• Pathological liar: compulsive, obsessive
• Cunning and Manipulative
• Lack of Remorse or Guilt
• Shallow Affect: Superficial emotional responsiveness
• Callous and Lack Empathy
• Poor Behavioral Controls
• Sexually Promiscuous
• Lack Realistic Long Term Goals
• Overly Impulsive

Travis Kalanick of Uber

“Never ask ‘Can it be done?’ Only question how it can be done.”

The sharing economy exploded like no other in the 21st century and Uber was the first to successfully take reign. However, following every new win was a new government regulation and tedious fight against state laws, federal laws, taxi cab unions, and overall safety of customers. Travis Kalanick co-founded Uber in 2009 and stepped down as CEO (along with a number of executives and employees) in 2017 due to protests over his participation in Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and a trail of scandals including public arguments, alleged sexual assault, and sexism within the corporation. Despite his departure, Kalanick took Uber from a luxury cab service to the global brand that millions of people rely on every single day.

Kalanick connected with everyone over analytical, problem-solving. That was the bond he formed with people like him who wanted to make the world more efficient in profound, novel ways. As a kid, he dreamed of growing up to be a spy, but his innate confidence, persuasiveness, and implacability made him a great fit for sales. Kalanick received excellent grades and was a budding athlete but he was bullied by older students. He later vowed that he’d never be pushed around by anyone again. During his teenage years, he was exceptionally self-assured and known to always have “his game face on” (Stone). He had a way of spinning any conversation into a sales pitch and a good one nonetheless.

Menlo Ventures, a venture capital firm, described Kalanick’s work ethic as something they’ve never seen before by the way he “lives, eats, and breathes Uber” (Zipkin). His dedication was relentless and expressed an incredible amount of devotion to the company and its impact on the world. He was addicted to the service and never wanted to slow down. Kalanick expected his vision for the company and his work ethic to trickle down to his employees. He expected them to work just as hard and when they failed to meet standards, he aggressively and publicly confronted or fired anyone who might stand in his way of success. Kalanick would get up in the morning without anyone on his team helping and still make ends meet. His work ethic and perseverance are inspirational especially when times got tough, he would stop at nothing to meet his objectives. Kalanick constantly directed his team to work harder beyond what they thought was possible. He wanted Uber to conquer the world.

In the early stages of Uber, there was a mismatch of supply and demand and Kalanick erupted. He shouted “we need more fucking cars” (Stone). During one of the first government battles where Uber had to fight for their place on the roads he described his persistence as “I wasn’t going to bust my ass to launch something the city was going to shut down immediately” (Zipkin). His “feisty combativeness” was unlike any other as he aimed to mercilessly beat out any competition: “We are going to stab those guys in the back”. His remarkable adaptiveness combined with his fierce competitive streak made Uber a force to be reckoned with both the government and competitors like Lyft. Kalanick’s form of hustling was the most controversial. He would pick fights, bend laws, and throw temper tantrums. Partners did not get along well with the former CEO describing his entry into the room as coming in like “he as God’s gift”. His abrasiveness turned off employees and hurt his and Uber’s image (Zipkin).

Kalanick did not react well to complaints from customers. He refused to ever believe the popular theory that “customers are always right” and often flipped it around blaming problems on the users (Shontell). His arguments were based on facts and intellectual agreements leading to multiple wins. Employees feared Kalanick’s competitive and intense nature (Conger). He was blunt and completely unaware and indifferent to how his comments and actions were perceived. His recklessness, ego, and arrogance eventually led to multiple scandals and his eventual exit from the company. Kalanick is a prime example of where psychopathic traits got the best of his ability to continue leading his company. He was a successful founder and leader in the beginning years of Uber, but a few of his psychopathic traits were too strong and eventually affected his and the company’s reputation in a time where public image means everything.

Is Travis Kalanick a Psychopath?

Kalanick accurately displays 12/20 of the traits from Hare’s Checklist:

• Glib and Superficial Charm: smooth-talking, but truly shallow and insincere
• Grandiose establishment of self: Ostentatious self-image
• Constant need for stimulation
• Cunning and Manipulative
• Lack of Remorse or Guilt
• Shallow Affect: Superficial emotional responsiveness
• Callous and Lack Empathy
• Poor Behavioral Controls
• Sexually Promiscuous
• Overly Impulsive
• Irresponsible
• Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Bill Gates of Microsoft

“We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten. Don’t let yourself be lulled into inaction.”

Gates has changed drastically since his early days at Microsoft. He is no longer the ruthless leader of the company he founded in 1975, but now pledges his time to his Seattle based philanthropic foundation praised for his kindness and compassion. From the very beginning of his childhood, he always loved challenges and pushing everything to its limit. It was acknowledged early on how incredibly talented and intelligent he was. At seven years old he read his home encyclopedias from beginning to end. His parents described him as an introspective, intense, reflective child who was also obsessive and compulsive with how much he could learn. His pastor recalls Gate exclaiming, “I can do anything I put my mind to”. Gates completed everything beyond expectations and to the maximum. In 4th grade he was assigned to write a four-page paper and turned in 30 pages. He tended to be socially inept in school, but was passionate about his education, especially when he discovered computers. Classmates described him as always having a competitive fire and driving ambition. He hated losing. Students also noticed that he was able to speak like an adult and could express himself in ways way beyond what was expected at their age. He wasted no time in school and followed a strict schedule. His talent for computers did not go unnoticed. He could easily see shortcuts in math and computer programs during lower school and began wreaking havoc for his teachers as he hacked into the computers bringing the whole system down at times. Everyone knew he was “the smartest kid in school” and was always one step ahead. His attention to detail added to his impressive mental capacity and enormous technical acumen where no one could fool him. In 11th grade, he told a friend that he would be a millionaire by the time he was 30 years old. His traits of being hard-nosed and very confrontational (even with teachers) stuck with him throughout Microsoft (Wallace). In classes, his intensity sometimes took a wrong turn and would transform to raw, unhinged emotional temper tantrums.

Upon starting a successful business in highschool analyzing and selling information to municipalities, Gates dropped out of school to pursue full-time work. Years later as he was planning the launch of Microsoft, he strived to learn everything there was to know about business from the basics all the way to legalities. As he was just starting to work with his new team, he would call people “stupid”, “idiots”, and often rewrote other peoples’ code (sometimes taking credit for it) crowning him with the infamous title of the “Office Bully” early on. He was always pushing his programmers and when one would create a clever piece of code, Gates ridiculed them asking “Why didn’t you do that days ago?”. One programmer recalls “being driven to the edge all the time” (Wallace). He reviewed every single line in programs and many saw it as obnoxious. He pushed his team members because he wanted them to be better, but they also pushed themselves to keep up with Gates who believed in working hard to make better products and win. The idea of combining ambition and the craving for winning every day defined “being hard-core”. He loved pushing things to the edge, “That’s where you most often find high performance”. Racecar drivers experience a phenomenon called Red Mist which occurs when someone becomes so exhilarated and experience an adrenaline rush that all the blood rushes to their eyes (Wallace). This happens to Bill Gates.

Acting the same as he did in high school, Gates loathed wasting time. When his team was moving from New Mexico to Washington, all he did was complain that the move was a complete waste of time where they could be programming. His overly intense personality sometimes came off too strong during negotiations and would lose prospective sales. A previous Microsoft executive described his negotiations as “almost a viciousness” and would often throw anger-fueled temper tantrums in front of the clients. Microsoft tended to over commit themselves with numerous projects and unrealistic deadlines, but Gates could care less. He was only interested in winning the sale confidently knowing he would deal with the consequences later. People were shocked at his lack of diplomacy. He repeatedly wore employees down weaponizing his formidable intellect combined with rude, sarcastic, and insulting commentary. A previous employee explains how “‘Bill doesn’t really want to review your spec, he just wants to make sure you’ve got it under control. His standard M.O. is to ask harder and harder questions until you admit that you don’t know, and then he can yell at you for being unprepared”. He was easily infuriated by the inadequate performance of others. A secret skill he had was being able to spot weak links even in the most logical arguments and once he found one, he would rip the case and person to shreds. Employees were faced with daily emotional tirades and verbal abuse. One product manager described Gate’s behavior as, “He would browbeat people. Just imposing your intellectual prowess on somebody doesn’t win the battle and he didn’t know that. He was very rich and very immature. He had never matured emotionally”. During a Wall Street Journal photoshoot (where Gates and his team were being honored), he lost his temper after several mishaps of not having the right color sweater and bad lighting where he savagely complained about the team wasting his time. He demanded everyone to clear out the room and shouted, “Why don’t you people go make a better living and leave me to make mine!” (Wallace).

Authoritarian leaders like to keep control. Gates required so much control that he even signed off the expenses of his second in command Steve Ballmer. He was always able to make quick decisions and was never fazed by any obstacles or missteps. Gates was known to be extremely vocal and persuasive in arguments but was not afraid to admit he was wrong and change his mind. He had the rare ability to put his ego aside even with his intense personality. He was also able to recognize his weaknesses and worked hard to find the perfect hire for that specific job.

Microsoft’s corporate culture followed traditional Darwinian methods — survival of the fittest. Every six months developers were reviewed by peers and the bottom 5% were fired. Gates rationalizes this by saying “There are other jobs out there. If they don’t have what it takes to work at Microsoft, they can go to Boeing”. Gates believes his company was able to thrive due to the caliber of the people they hired. Employees needed to show ambition, expertise, business judgment, and incredible intelligence above all else. Each day he wanted expected employees to arrive at work thinking “I want to win” (Wallace). His employees anticipated rapid-fire questions and he expected them to also challenge upper management. Gates would reportedly stalk the company’s parking lots on weekends to see who was working overtime. He believed in constant feedback and never giving employees the chance to become complacent because they will be challenged. The confrontational style of management helped the company maintain its mental edge and toughness.

Gates’s relentless drive to dominate the personal computers and software industry made him feared. He engrained the company motto of “We set the standard” into the company’s psyche. Employees diligently listened to what Gates preached. His innate intense competitive spirit was deeply woven into the company. If their leader drank the Kool-aid, they would not hesitate to do the same. Gate’s clear vision and expected work ethic influenced his employees’ mentalities. A previous Microsoft human resources director described the situation as “You are surrounded with people who are very much the same, and the people who run the company are the same, so you just go and go and go” (Wallace).

Competition was everything to Gates. He lived and breathed his annihilating those who entered the industry he created. It was never enough to be number one and he believed that type of complacency leads to failure. Gates aimed to take advantage of every business opportunity that lets Microsoft win, regardless if the entire industry or smaller businesses suffer. Lesser-known companies compared meetings with Microsoft as “date rape” (Wallace). The other side would meet with Microsoft executives in good faith and were consistently taken advantage of. Microsoft was notoriously famous for buying out potential competitors, stealing business ideas and making their own, or cheating them out of deals. Gates swore to never let the competition catch Microsoft off-guard. His ferocious tenacity scared new businesses and they soon realized they were no match against Microsoft’s extreme persistence. There were public disputes over what kind of leader Bill Gates as smaller companies continued to reveal what business with Microsoft was actually like. Multiple media outlets attacked the CEO and company with headlines like “From Computer Whiz to Bullying Billionaire” (Seattle Post Intelligencer) and “One Day, Junior Got Too Big” (New York Times). In 1991, the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation looking into allegations that the company was or had attempted to monopolize multiple technology industries. Early rounds of Gate’s deposition show him offering vague answers and repeatedly saying “I don’t recall” (CNBC). Philippe Kahn, an outspoken Gates critic, claimed “No one wants to work with Microsoft anymore. They don’t have any friends left”. He could see the future clearly and was willing to make investments on his strong hunch of an idea of what the markets would be like in three years. An IBM executive described Gates as the “most brilliant mind” he ever dealt with. Even by 2003, his full vision was far from complete, “…we’re a long way away from it. You gotta watch out for the anticlimax. Staring out the window and saying ‘isn’t this great, ‘ is not the solution to pushing things forward… you’ve got to keep driving hard” (Wallace).

Is Bill Gates a Psychopath

Gate’s character and actions changed as he aged and matured. He had a select number of psychopathic tendencies at the start of Microsoft which allowed him to spearhead the company in the budding high-tech industry, but now his leadership style has transformed into one focused on collaboration and relationships. After psychoanalyzing his personality during the formative years of Microsoft, Gates matches 7/20 traits from Hare’s Checklist.

• Grandiose establishment of self: ostentatious self-image
• Constant need for stimulation
• Cunning and Manipulative
• Lack of Remorse or Guilt
• Shallow Affect: superficial emotional responsiveness
• Callous and Lack Empathy
• Poor Behavioral Controls

Why Normal is Good

Multiple studies with employees and successful entrepreneurs have expressed that the wave of intense and cruel treatment is coming to an end. Individuals argue that to produce exceptional work and productivity that the environment needs to exude optimism and have a hands-off approach to projects. Individuality and transparency are praised in most industries today. With the changing generation in the workforce, new graduates and millennials tend to be adverse to harsh working conditions and sensitive to dictatorial-esque directions. Many avoid grueling, extended hours of work at corporations. They aim to work for companies that engage in corporate social responsibility and ensuring that the work they do is impactful. Articles argue that the most effective managers put others first and must be modest and unassuming. One specific trait that affected a leader’s authority and level of respect was humility. Scoring high on a humility scale means that he or she respects others’ opinions and accepts feedback with no retaliation (Bloomberg). Individuals thrive with different leadership styles in the same way students maximize learning with different teaching techniques.

To repeat the overlapping traits between leaders, entrepreneurs, and psychopaths: 1. Reward Driven, 2. Influential and Charming, 3. Strategic Risk Takers, 4. Intense Challengers. It is not to say that the leaders in this section do not match the selected traits, but what differentiates them is the extent to which they fulfill them. There is a stark difference in motivations and priorities between the “insane” and “normal” individuals.

Brian Chesky of Airbnb

“Our perception of time is really driven by our perception of the unfamiliar, vivid, and new.”

During Brian Chesky’s architecture degree at the Rhode Island School of Design, the school preached early on the practical idealism of students being able to “build their own world”. Chesky, already a determined and passionate student, was ready to “put a dent in the universe” upon graduation (where he was his class commencement speaker). He started his own companies selling portable seat cushions. Despite the idea never taking off, he never gave up selling and creating. Early venture capitalists recall him as being one of the hardest and most persistent individuals they had ever met (Stone).

Chesky’s passion for creating an empowering and welcoming company culture is based on Airbnb’s company motto “Belong Anywhere”. His focus in life has always been about finding positive ways to contribute to society and creating shared values. Chesky uses a value-driven leadership approach that epitomizes his focus as a community and social leader. Chesky has always been about values and contributing to society. He made it Airbnb’s mission to put a unique human exchange at the heart of everything the company did. Culture means everything to Chesky. He defines it as the foundation of the company. His personal goals shine through in Airbnb’s core values including a passion for humanity, commitment to hard work, and staying helpful and playful. Airbnb’s entire story and goal is to create and develop human connections with Chesky explaining “The stuff that matters in life is no longer stuff. It’s other people. It’s relationships” (Stone). His strong personal skills and ability to talk to a variety of audiences made him extremely influential and persuasive among his employees and partners.

Due to Chesky’s lack of previous experience as any sort of leader (let alone a CEO), he depended on learning from mentors and was shameless when it came to asking dozens of questions while intensely taking notes. He explains his success as a leader comes from his strong sense of humility and willingness to always learn from smarter people. In 2011 a host filed an incident that her apartment was destroyed and items were stolen by her guests. Airbnb was slow to react and faced media backlash attacking their lack of responsiveness and responsibility. Behind the scenes, the Airbnb team was attempting to manage the crisis without any success. Chesky realized that finding a consensus in times of urgency was not effective. He explained that companies needed to be guided by their principles and react proactively to acknowledge mistakes, publicly apologize, and repay damages. Chesky’s enormous drive to make Airbnb successful came in handy when the company was slammed by the government for disrupting the hospitality industry and city guidelines. He was adamant about fighting until the end for his company arguing that a company like Airbnb was overdue — “You cannot kill an idea whose time has come” (Stone).

Chesky’s hands-on approach and unrelenting belief in honest communication are consistently praised. He was dedicated to sharing news internally before anything was released in the media. The CEO is known to send emails to all employees each Sunday with random “whatever is on his mind’’ and allows staff to create a conversation with him. Chesky immerses himself into his teams to address the root causes of issues and find innovative solutions to them. Airbnb’s culture leans on its type of employees. Chesky believed the first hiring wave would determine the company’s DNA (it took six months). He wanted all employees to genuinely believe in Airbnb’s mission of cultivating empathy and understanding the idea of belonging (Stone).

Robert Iger of Disney

“Don’t be in the business of playing it safe. Be in the business of creating possibilities for greatness.”

The classic “start as an intern and work your way up to an executive role” is much less common today. Before technology ruled over all the industries, entertainment was at the forefront. Robert Iger worked for more than 40 years and started as a weatherman for his local TV station in Ithaca, New York at 21 years old. He plans to retire from his CEO position at Disney next year in 2021. His story of success may seem mundane as it followed the traditional trajectory of a white male in the early 90s and 2000s, but his ability to redeem Disney from its abysmal recent years of performance and return it to its full glory of Disney magic is based on Iger’s consistent hard work, unnerving persistence, and nurturing of relationships (Denning).

Iger lays out his 10 principles of leadership as:

1. Optimism
2. Courage
3. Focus
4. Decisiveness
5. Curiosity
6. Fairness
7. Thoughtfulness
8. Authenticity
9. Relentless Pursuit for Perfection
10. Integrity

He emphasizes the importance of an optimistic leader in all situations explaining that employees do not want to follow someone with a negative mindset. Being comfortable with failure and acknowledging mistakes allowed him to gain the trust of those he worked with, employees, and the public increasing his respectability. Coworkers praise Iger’s “ability in human relations” and his genuine thoughtfulness (Bart). The founder of Dreamworks marvels at Iger’s character and claims he’s “never heard one person say a bad thing about him and I have never seen him be mean. To be honorable, decent, smart, successful and a terrific guy is unusual anywhere. But it is most unusual in the entertainment business. He’s in a category of one”. Iger rarely, perhaps never, speaks poorly against individuals even if there was conflict or disagreements because he acknowledges how important relationships are. Burning bridges is not something Iger does. Every conversation and interaction was an opportunity to gain knowledge and develop comprehensive plans. He is extremely organized and follows routines and plans while staying extremely thoughtful. After shutting off his daily 5:30 AM alarm, he grabs his perfectly pre-laid out the night before clothes to avoid waking his wife (Iger).

Within the first weeks as CEO, Iger prioritized rehabilitating the incredibly sad and harsh relationship with Steve Jobs who was unhappy with the production and distribution agreement between Disney and the animation company Pixar. He knew how crucial the studio would be in improving Disney’s image and success. Despite having a rocky start with Jobs where the notorious Apple founder bluntly dismissed one of Iger’s projects as “a piece of crap”, Iger continued to pursue Jobs as not only a business partner but friend (Iger was the second person Jobs told about the return of his pancreatic cancer and one of the few who attended his funeral). Iger saw the importance of Pixar and began to rebuild that trust between the two companies by first reaching out to Jobs about a once “outlandish idea” of taking the entertainment industry fully digital and portable. Early on, he recognized how critical pure digital media and the crossover between content and technology would be and that Disney and ABC had to be a part of the first wave. He began making huge bets on his extraordinary vision that paid off — “The riskiest thing we can do is just maintain the status quo” (Iger). This initial and innocuous conversation with Jobs would later lead to the $7.4 billion sale of Pixar to Disney (Denning).

One of Iger’s most underestimated skills was his “sublime sense of timing”. Every single business move and correspondence was strategically thought out and he patiently out-waited and outsmarted his high-powered rivals. In a bidding war for Fox assets against Comcast, Iger flew to Belfast and chartered a plane to London where he booked a hotel (that he did not stay at) under a fake name to distract and prevent Comcast from tracking Disney’s movements. Disney won as Comcast dropped out. Iger’s plan to revive the brand with massive acquisitions were shortly followed by the addition of Marvel (earning Disney over $18 billion in the box office) and Lucasfilm (Star Wars franchise). Buying these iconic studios was no easy task. Iger again leveraged the relationships he made during his early work years to get his foot in the door with the lucrative studio owners and focused on building a friendly relationship and being completely transparent with his plans. One of the most questioned items with Disney acquiring these companies had nothing to do with finances. Owners wanted to know that their employees, culture, and purpose would not get lost in the massive Disney corporate world. Iger understood the concerns and soothed the worries by thoroughly explaining what he would do to promote a positive integration and never losing the studio’s individuality. Iger proudly explains that “True authority and true leadership come from knowing who you are and not pretending to be anything else” (Iger).

Iger firmly believes that professional competition and true kindness are not mutually exclusive. He sees a manager’s task to translate strategies to business units into manageable actions for the team while mapping out a logistically sound path. He always weighs the pros and cons without missing a single detail and takes risks when necessary even if they fail. Iger believes “Strong leadership embodies the fair and decent treatment of people…Nothing is worse to an organization than a culture of fear” (Dowd). Treating others fairly and respectfully were always a priority especially in his work life and that over time, employees will start to represent the values that their leader lives by. He believes in cultivating the teams he works with and empowering them to lead, innovate, and push them towards the right direction. His friendship with Steve Jobs taught Iger to be especially careful with how he interacted with his employees. He rarely gets angry, but when he does he never shows it. He often thinks of the bigger picture and never thinks it is worth getting mad at someone for something so small.

Larry Page of Google

“Excellence matters. I’ve pushed hard to increase our velocity, improve our execution, and focus on the big bets that will make a difference in the world.”

Larry Page always wanted to invent. He was intelligent, creative, driven, ambitious, collaborative, and just graduated from Stanford. At 12 years old he finished reading the biography of his childhood idol — physicist and inventor Nikola Tesla. He recalls at that age that he knew he would eventually start a company. Page has always been the true visionary and the driving force behind Google. He believed in building great things that don’t exist and that thinking propelled the company to take on radical-seeming projects (called “moon shots”) that pushed the boundaries of what was currently the “norm” (Carlson). This type of thinking drove his employees to do their best and set their own potentially impossible expectations.

Page’s leadership style was extremely open and democratic. He wanted his employees to fully believe and accept crazy ideas with open arms. His top priorities were efficiency in work and decisions to have more active management. He preaches that Google has always had the philosophy that by having more people and resources, teams can achieve more solutions. Page explains that the company’s 0% turnover rate in 2016 was based on the “family feeling” of Google (Nisen). He emphasized the importance of strong relationships and that employees feel they are fully part of the company. One of his top strategies for Google’s success is to recognize the importance of small changes within the organization and carefully paying attention to what each person is working on (Bariso). With Page’s transformational leadership style, employees were encouraged to think of their own projects and constantly share ideas. His integrity and honesty made Page a trustworthy leader. He strongly believed in avoiding bureaucracy and knew the importance of small teams to implement ideas quickly and organized. Some of his downfalls as an introvert that learned to train and delegate tasks, came from his lack of social grace and emotional awareness (Parera). He was also seen as an “intense control freak” (Elmer).

Marc Benioff of Salesforce

“I strongly believe the business of a business is to improve the world.”

After 13 devoted years at Oracle landing a variety of executive positions from sales to marketing to product development, Marc Benioff sought out his lifelong goal — to build his own company. Benioff grew up with an extended network of family businesses. He’s always wanted to be an entrepreneur. When he started learning everything there was to know about software and coding in high school, he became obsessed. At 15 he started his first company (essentially a video game platform) and was able to pay all four years of college from that success. Steve Jobs made him realize that it was “possible for an entrepreneur to encourage revolutionary ideas and foster a distinctive culture” (Benioff). After spending his last Oracle sabbatical in Hawaii he traveled to India where he experienced a spiritual awakening with the Dalai Lama himself. Benioff found his calling in turning software into a service and discovered the importance of philanthropy. He returned to America with a newfound appreciation for relationships and meaningful connections. Benioff was ready for Salesforce. He was dedicated to disrupt the entire software industry and become a leader in this new market that he was about to create. Salesforce was focused on customer success which would later lead to company loyalty for life and change the entire landscape of the high-tech industry. Benioff explains, “Nothing is more important to [Salesforce] than making sure every customer is successful in our service” (Soper).

The top strategies for Salesforce have been the same since its inception. The top priority is gaining the trust of both employees and customers and cultivating those relationships, not the financial growth or global expansion of the company. Benioff’s goal in life is intertwined with the company culture of Salesforce — to create a positive global impact no matter how small. His vision of success and for the future is more holistic in the sense of starting locally and expanding globally, but everything is of equal importance. Benioff strictly follows his V2MOM model: Vision, Values, Methods, Obstacles, and Measures. A main priority he believes is setting principles and beliefs to help guide employees to the company vision. Benioff stands by his unpopular opinion of increasing government regulations to hold technology companies accountable and is a strong believer in facing criticism. At his previous job, Oracle’s setting was a Machiavellian environment where management thrived on ridicule. Benioff wanted Salesforce to be based on transparency where everything was defined and communicated with all employees; always welcoming feedback. Formal organizational charts were thought of being too narrow, unempowering for employees, and missed the nuances of the teams. He does not agree with the common autocratic leadership style that most technology leaders use (Benioff).

Sun Tzu’s, The Art of War, inspired Benioff’s leadership style and strategy for facing his competitors. The famous book advocates for always keeping calm quoting, “He who is quick-tempered can be insulted”. Salesforce’s own spinoff of Tzu’s work directly addresses the importance of competition, “We believe in the art of war. We are trying to get our comp to attack us with angry, virulent energy, so we can transform that into a larger market share” (Soper). Benioff uses the media as his secret weapon when marketing the company and beating out the competition by being extremely proactive with all public relations announcements and always showing respect to those in the industry to further build on that relationship. He celebrates new competition and sees it as another opportunity to prove why Salesforce is the best option for customers, “Don’t fear competition. Welcome and leverage it”. Benioff has an extremely different approach when it comes to confronting obstacles. He avoids aggressive contracts when it comes to international deals and writes them with “Light and Love” focused on the brevity of the agreement and strives to evoke a welcoming and respectful offering. With regard to compliance with the government, he plays by the rules and does not see a benefit to argue incessantly going in circles (Benioff). He believes in working with the other side and truly understanding what both sides need.

Salesforce’s 1–1–1 model revolves around the founding belief that “the internet is a democratizing tool” focused on giving back and helping all communities. The company designates 1% of paid employee time as volunteer hours, donates 1% of profits to communities in need, and 1% of its resources to charitable causes. Benioff preaches that “To be truly successful, companies need to have a corporate mission that is bigger than making a profit. Innovation cannot advance in a positive direction unless it’s grounded in genuine and continued efforts to lift up all of humanity.” He welcomes employees to find and support their own charities and recognizes employees who go above and beyond the 1% volunteering requirement by rewarding them with grants in their names.

One of Benioff’s obsessions is ensuring the company hires top talent through aggressive interviews and their “All Yes” rule where every stakeholder needs to agree when taking in new hires. Salesforce has an extensive onboarding process to help employees achieve success and really understand the “Mahalo” company culture (Hawaiian spirit for gratitude and praise). Benioff also utilizes the company’s internal “Idea Exchange” platform to gather employee suggestions and allows them to see how their work is important to the success of the company (Benioff). He understands how important rewarding work is as the everyday environment contributes to individuals’ happiness and success and therefore the longevity of the company. Any salesperson who meets their quota is rewarded a three day trip to Maui, “Things that have some emotional value attached to them are what encourage people the most”. He challenges his best people with new opportunities to keep them engaged and committed. By supporting employees every step of the way, Benioff is able to foster incredible employee loyalty. His “mindfulness zones” on every company floor encourages a “beginner’s mindset” which is the practice of looking at the world with fresh eyes to avoid homogeneous thinking and missed opportunities. Transparency, trust, and relationships lay the groundwork for Salesforce’s drivers to success based on Benioff’s goal of leaving a positive and impactful mark on society.

Tale of Two Insanities

As discussed earlier, a successful leader has high emotional intelligence, a great amount of influence, acts decisively, and behaves as a pacemaker. However, just attaining these traits does not automatically create a successful leader. The extent to which individuals genuinely uphold these actions on a day to day basis differentiates a mediocre, successful leader from one that will be remembered decades from now for their actions and character.

Psychopaths, leaders and entrepreneurs have four overlapping traits that make them successful. They are incredibly reward-driven, express undeniable charm and influence, have the ability to assess current and future situations to execute strategic risks, and act as intense challengers to their peers and competitors.

After studying both “sane” and “insane” leaders, there are distinct differences between the two groups. The sane group of CEOs may display the four overlapping qualities, but not to the full capacity as the psychopathic leaders do. Psychopathic leaders have extremely specific, long-term visions (bordering on impossible) burned into their company’s DNA. Sane leaders think of the future with more generic goals like Benioff’s idea of bettering communities or creating a sense of belonging from Airbnb. There will never be a measurable point where someone can say that the goal has been accomplished. Examples of outrageous end goals that have pushed leaders to achieve the impossible would be like Musk’s plan to live on Mars (has not happened yet) or Amazon’s goal of being “The Everything Store” (goal achieved). Leaders become fixated on their visions for the future and are able to motivate their teams to work harder every step of the way. Just like psychopaths, these leaders are engrossed in meeting their goals and will do anything to meet it.

Figure 5:

The second difference between the two groups of leaders is the type of personal and company values. Sane leaders tend to focus on bettering communities, creating a positive company culture through transparency, and building trusting relationships internally and customers. The idea of humility helps leaders and employees improve their self-confidence and faith in the company’s mission and goals. Rewarding individual successes is a common thread between this group. Sane leaders want to see their employees flourish and see the importance of giving their teams recognition and respect. They believe the foundation of a successful company is the company culture itself. Psychopathic leaders are obsessed with their one goal and will dispose of any useless resources — including employees.

Based on these two groups, company priorities can be split into customers or products. Blake Mouton’s Managerial Grid mentioned earlier under the behavioral theory, discovered the exact same findings. The second group of sane leaders, emphasize the importance of positive customer relationships. They view customer success as the most critical step of brand and product loyalty. Psychopathic leaders value the quality of their products above all else. Steve Jobs aimed to create the most beautiful and technologically advanced products. Design is equally as important as functionality. These psychopathic leaders still listen to the feedback of their customers, but care more about innovative results and constant improvement.

Figure 6:

The following pages will compare the two groups of leaders based on the four-step model of success introduced earlier.

Figure 7:

Employee Happiness Analysis

There is no explicit way to quantify happiness as it is entirely subjective and ambiguous. At the beginning of Part 3, the measurement of success is based on a chain of effects: effective leadership leads to employee happiness which increases productivity and levels of innovation resulting in profit and the longevity of a company. Ensuring employee happiness is important to productivity and quality of work produced. There are two indexes that measure happiness in the workplace:

Employee Net Promoter Score (eNPS): This analyzes an employee’s loyalty to the company, engagement in projects and events and how likely they would recommend their employer to a friend or acquaintance.

Employee Satisfaction Index (ESI): Takes employee ratings based on a scale of 1–10 asking how satisfied an employee is with their current workplace, how well it meets their expectations, and how close it is to their ideal one.

The website Comparably collects information regarding company culture and market compensation from contributing companies. They grade employee happiness by asking employees the following questions:

• Do you feel burnt out at work?
• Are your company’s goals clear and are you invested in them?
• Do you believe you’re paid fairly?
• Is your work environment positive or negative?
• Are you satisfied with your benefits ?

Figure 8:

The chart above analyzes and compares each company discussed earlier, their eNPS and the employee happiness grade. In the first column where employees were asked if they would recommend someone to work at their company, the group of companies with “insane” CEOs averaged 46.2% agreeing with that statement. In the group with “sane” CEOs, the average was 56%, which is 10% greater than the first group.

Company Analysis of Productivity, Profitability, and Longevity

Based on the four-step company success model introduced earlier, the last two parts to analyze are productivity and financials. Productivity and profits are directly linked. To determine how financially successful each company is (while taking into account the age and size) this analysis will be utilizing three metrics: earnings per share, return on assets, and net profit margins. Earnings per share evaluates how much an investor makes for each share of stock. The higher the EPS, the more valuable and profitable the company is. It takes profit divided by the total number of outstanding shares (stocks held by all shareholders including share blocks and restricted shares owned by company officers). Return on assets is an indicator of how well a company utilizes its assets (efficiency). The net profit margin illustrates how much of each dollar of revenue translates into profit. Each company is analyzed based on the years the leader held their CEO position. Airbnb is a private company, it will be excluded. Uber became a publicly-traded company during Kalanick’s last year as CEO and therefore will be excluded. An additional note to keep in mind is the volatility of new companies and how recent they were founded such as Tesla (2013) and Salesforce (1999).

Figure 9:

Figure 10:

Figure 11:

Most of the companies have positive percent changes during the course of the designated leader’s term as CEO. The main difference between the first group led by “psychopaths” and the second with “sane” leaders, is the value of percent change. While both groups experience negative and positive changes for the three metrics.

Figure 12:

Average of

| EPS |

| Return on Assets |

| Net Profit Margin |

Group 1

Psychopathic Leaders

13, 349

104

124

Group 2

Sane Leaders

5,213

43

66

Are Psychopaths or Non-Psychopaths More Effective Leaders?

An individual with strong yet simple leadership qualities was identified as having emotional intelligence, influence, ability to act on decisions quickly, and set goals as a pacemaker. Translating these traits and comparing them to Hare’s Psychopath Checklist (PCL), revealed overlapping qualities that maximize a leader’s effectiveness; they are reward-driven, have inescapable charm, are strategic risk-takers, and challenge everyone expecting the same in return.

Based on the analysis, despite Group 1 (“psychopathic leaders”) having an employee happiness score 10% lower than Group 2 (“sane leaders”), productivity and profitability were not directly affected. In fact, Group 1 displayed substantially higher percent changes than Group 2 for all three metrics (EPS, ROA, and net profit margin).

All the companies analyzed are incredibly successful. However, the businesses who had leaders that accurately displayed traits from the PCL had higher profitability levels. There is no metric to precisely measure how much more effective these CEOs with psychopathic tendencies are, but the presented analysis does confirm a difference in the two groups.

Leaders from Group 1 are able to impressively wield their radical values and recruit likewise individuals who truly believe in their leader’s beliefs and goals. Long term rewards of transforming industries and innovating incredible products and services make up for the aggressive company culture and arduous hours. These leaders are entirely captivated by their work and have a hard time delegating work which can lead to a lack of trust and the idea of losing control. This can lead to outbursts such as temper tantrums (repeatedly found in Group 1). Their lack of empathy makes it hard to build trusting relationships, but these employees love to be challenged and want to prove themselves valuable to their boss. In the end, everyone works towards a collective goal, but different company values and objectives require specific types of management styles. Companies led by CEOs from Group 2 are just as successful with Google holding the majority market share in search engines and Salesforce inventing customer relationship management. These companies are focused on communities, relationships, and empowerment. Employees flock to companies that share the same values as them and work best under the influence of leaders they relate to.

Companies like Tesla and the others mentioned with Group 1, require complete devotion of focus and time to achieve their goals. During the founding years of Microsoft, Gates was able to release new products and dominate his competitors like no other. By the time he had retired, the hardest part of creating the company had passed and Microsoft needed a different leader during this transition period. Companies that are just starting to reap the benefits need leaders who can motivate employees to work to their absolute limits, challenge ideas, and never lose focus of their long-term goal. It seems that the most effective leaders for these scenarios tend to be a bit psychopathic.

Conclusion

In today’s era of business, where traditional command-and-control leadership styles are not as widely accepted, firms now opt to create a transparent and inclusive culture. While all companies should work on promoting this new outlook, certain businesses need demanding, intense leaders to truly be effective in creating measurable change. Psychopathic traits are often unnoticed as they are artistically spun into hidden, redeemable qualities. This is exactly why they are so powerful. Individuals who can exploit their psychopathic tendencies for a greater purpose become the most effective leaders as a driving force for transforming daily society activity and the future. It is extremely crucial to determine what stage a company is in, their immediate needs, and upcoming obstacles to decide the type of leader best fit for the role. Leaders who act a bit psychopathic is sometimes exactly what a business needs.