1. 1
Corporate Psychopaths: The Good, the Evil, and Organizational Differences
By Oleg Nekrassovski
Introduction
Corporate Psychopaths are often viewed as sinister masterminds dangerous to
organizations. Boddy, Ladyshewsky, and Galvin (2010) wrote, “Leaders without ethics in global
business: Corporate psychopaths” in order to provide a thorough overview of Corporate
Psychopaths, as well as present new empirical evidence in support of the view that Corporate
Psychopaths are overrepresented at senior levels of organizations. Kottke and Pelletier (2013)
wrote, “Measuring and differentiating perceptions of supervisor and top leader ethics” in order to
present the results of two studies that appraised the employees’ perceptions of the ethics of their
supervisors and top leaders. Finally, Bon (2012) wrote, “Examining the crossroads of law, ethics,
and education leadership” in order to provide a better understanding of the intersection of law
and ethics and its bearing on educational leaders, in particular. Together, these articles suggest
the characteristics of organizations that may be most attractive to Corporate Psychopaths; and
demonstrate that the presence of Corporate Psychopaths within organizations can have both
positive and negative effects on these organizations.
Corporate Psychopaths and Other Employees: The Good
Potential employees with psychopathic traits are more likely to be viewed favorably by
corporate recruiters, and once hired, by their supervisors and subordinates, than employees
without such traits. This facilitates their recruitment and promotion within organizations. In fact,
according to Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin (2010), corporations want employees that are
energetic, charming, and fast-moving; which happen to be common outward characteristics of
psychopaths. Moreover, psychopaths impress recruiters by presenting themselves as being with
good abilities, emotionally well-adjusted, reasonable, intelligent, successful, friendly, reliable,
trustworthy, loyal, and with healthy ambitions. Corporate Psychopaths rise within corporations
by skillfully integrating themselves with people; which often comes down to simply telling them
what they want to hear. In addition, high personal charm and persuasiveness allows Corporate
Psychopaths to convince senior managers to have confidence in them; while also helping them to
succeed at job promotion interviews. Moreover, Corporate Psychopaths display polished and
unemotional decisiveness; which makes them look like ideal leaders (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, &
Galvin, 2010).
Hence, psychopathic leaders should be expected to be admired more, trusted more,
inspire more confidence in, and experience more loyalty from their subordinates, than leaders
without psychopathic traits. And according to Kottke and Pelletier (2013), the confidence of
employees in the top leadership of their organization is highly important for organizational
success. In fact, the employees, who perceive the top leadership of their organization as

2. 2
exercising complete guidance of the organization, are more likely to be innovate in their jobs,
show more commitment to the organization, and be less likely to quit (Kottke and Pelletier,
2013).
It is also valuable to note here, that according to Mahmut, Homewood, and Stevenson
(2007), the superior executive function, which is also characteristic of psychopaths, may reduce
the risk of their involvement in unethical or illegal behavior (as cited in Boddy, Ladyshewsky, &
Galvin, 2010). In addition, psychopaths, of primary psychopathic subtype, are characterized by
low emotional reactivity and a fundamental lack of anxiety (Zeier & Newman, 2013). And such
traits can be invaluable to organizational leaders on many occasions. For example, according to
Bon (2012), sound, ethical decision making, by organizational leaders, is often undermined by
pressures of legal compliance and fear of litigation. Similarly, lack of anxiety and low emotional
reactivity are traits which are greatly advantageous to organizational leaders who seek to practice
the ethic of critique; which aims at confronting and eliminating the discriminatory injustices,
which may be residing in the bureaucratic structures of organizations, through fundamental
transformation of organizations (Bon, 2012).
Corporate Psychopaths and Other Employees: The Evil
Ethics is the fundamental principles that guide leaders and inform their practice. Leaders
who lack, or disregard, sound ethical principles, may lack sufficient guidance for making good
decisions, especially in complex and high-stakes corporate environments (Bon, 2012). Hence,
good leaders are those who are able to recognize their ethical responsibilities towards others and
be able to discern the often-competing rights and interest of the people around them (Bon, 2012).
Unfortunately, the common traits of bad leaders, such as callous disregard for the wishes
and needs of other employees, and the willingness to lie, cheat, bully, and cause harm to, or
disregard, the welfare of others, are traits which are commonly associated with psychopathy
(Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010).
Hence, it is perhaps not surprising, that once in organizations, psychopaths tend to
identify supporters and opposition, and then eliminate opposition and rise to the top unopposed
(Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010). The supporters are identified and defined, by Corporate
Psychopaths, as those employees who can help them ascend to senior levels. While their
opponents are identified and defined as those who are willing and able to stop Corporate
Psychopaths from moving up the corporate ladder. And given the damage to the company and its
employees that results from the selfish methods the psychopaths tend to use in order to quickly
get promoted; the likes of auditors, security personnel, and human resources, usually fall on their
list of opponents (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010).
Once Corporate Psychopaths divide the organization’s employees, relevant to their cause,
into two camps, they start manipulating their way to the top, sacrificing some of their supporters
as necessary and/or shedding them when they’ve outlived their usefulness. By these methods,

3. 3
Corporate Psychopaths usually manage to outmaneuver and eliminate all of their opponents, and
then comfortably rise to the top without opposition (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010).
Hence, organizations led by psychopathic leaders should be expected to consist,
especially in managerial positions, of people who are ‘naturally’ inclined to support
psychopathic leaders. And while no other characteristics of these people are known, and
therefore should be researched; it can be argued that managers, who are inclined to support a
psychopathic leader, generally receive a higher ethical rating from their subordinates, than
managers without such inclinations. After all, in Kottke and Pelletier’s (2013) study the
employees of the organization that endured public scandal rated their immediate supervisors as
more ethical, than did the employees from the ‘control’ sample of organizations. And it is seems
clear that the fact, that these organizations were scandal-ridden, suggests that they were led by
psychopaths who have managed to eliminate opposition long ago, leaving only their supporters
and people indifferent to their cause.
Corporate Psychopaths and Organizational Differences
Different organizations have different organizational climates. In fact, according to
Kottke and Pelletier (2013), organizational climate is nothing more than an individual,
psychological appraisal of the organization based on that individual’s needs and values. In other
words, it’s an individual impression of the organization. Now, as already described, Corporate
Psychopaths tend to need and value only self-promotion, regardless of the cost to the people
around them (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010). Hence, organizations which are, or at least
that are perceived by psychopathic individuals to be, more conductive to selfish self-promotion,
can be expected to attract a disproportionate number of psychopaths.
This may suggest that the organizations, in which employees give their immediate
supervisors an ethical rating higher than the industry’s average, are more attractive to
psychopaths and possibly more conductive to selfish self-promotion. This is because Kottke and
Pelletier’s (2013) study found that only employees of organizations that endured public scandal,
and hence were likely led by psychopaths (and, by extension, were more attractive to them, in
the first place), rated their immediate supervisors better, in terms of ethics, than did the
employees from the sample of organizations representative of the corporate average.
It is also valuable to note, in this respect, that various laws, policies, regulations, and
rules, both demand and limit certain actions by managers within organizations. However, these
laws, policies, regulations, and rules, don’t always mandate specific actions, and instead may
permit the exercise of discretion (Bon, 2012). Hence, there is a considerable degree of discretion
that organization’s managers of various ranks can exercise. And in such circumstances, managers
often have nothing beside their core ethical principles to guide their decisions (Bon, 2012).
Hence, given that the core ‘ethical’ principles of Corporate Psychopaths, tend to be self-
promotion at any cost; Corporate Psychopaths can be expected to be attracted the most to
organizations which are, or at least that are perceived by them to be, subject to the fewest

4. 4
possible number of laws, policies, regulations, and rules, and hence, allow the greatest exercise
of discretion to their employees.
Conclusion
Thus, we have seen that the presence of Corporate Psychopaths within organizations can
have both positive and negative effects on these organizations. Moreover, it can be argued that
managers, who are inclined to support a psychopathic leader, generally receive a higher ethical
rating from their subordinates, than managers without such inclinations.
In addition, we have seen that organizations which are, or at least that are perceived by
psychopathic individuals to be, more conductive to selfish self-promotion, can be expected to
attract a disproportionate number of psychopaths. In particular, Corporate Psychopaths can be
expected to be attracted the most to organizations which are, or at least that are perceived by
them to be, subject to the fewest possible number of laws, policies, regulations, and rules, and
hence, allow the greatest exercise of discretion to their employees. Moreover, there is a
possibility that the organizations, in which employees give their immediate supervisors an ethical
rating higher than the industry’s average, are also more attractive to psychopaths and possibly
more conductive to selfish self-promotion.
We have also seen that Corporate Psychopaths have an ability to present themselves as
being with good abilities, emotionally well-adjusted, reasonable, intelligent, successful, friendly,
reliable, trustworthy, loyal, and with healthy ambitions. In addition, they act like ideal leaders
and have high personal charm and persuasiveness, which inspires confidence in them. Moreover,
they tend to possess high executive function, low emotional reactivity, and lack of anxiety.
On the other hand, Corporate Psychopaths, tend to possess the traits of bad leaders, such
as callous disregard for the wishes and needs of other employees, and the willingness to lie,
cheat, bully, and cause harm to, or disregard, the welfare of others.
It would be important to conduct further research on psychopaths’ perception of
organizations; given that organizations that are perceived by psychopathic individuals to be more
conductive to selfish self-promotion, especially those organizations that are perceived by them to
be subject to the fewest possible number of laws, policies, regulations, and rules, likely attract a
disproportionate number of psychopaths.
Finally, it would be important to conduct further research on the characteristics of people
that are ‘naturally’ inclined to support Corporate Psychopaths; given that the information on the
characteristics of such people largely doesn’t exist, and seems limited to the idea, presented in
this paper, that managers, who are inclined to support a psychopathic leader, generally receive a
higher ethical rating from their subordinates, than managers without such inclinations.

5. 5
References
Boddy, C. R. P., Ladyshewsky, R., & Galvin, P. (2010). Leaders without ethics in global
business: Corporate psychopaths. Journal of Public Affairs, 10(3), 121-138. doi:
10.1002/pa.352
Bon, S. C. (2012). Examining the crossroads of law, ethics, and education leadership. Journal of
School Leadership, 22(2), 285-308. Retrieved from
https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&
db=ehh&AN=75499248&site=eds-live&scope=site
Kottke, J., & Pelletier, K. (2013). Measuring and differentiating perceptions of supervisor and
top leader ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 415-428. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-
1312-8
Mahmut, M. K., Homewood, J., Stevenson, R. J. (2007). The characteristics of non-criminals
with high psychopathy traits: Are they similar to criminal psychopaths? Journal of
Research in Personality, 42, 679–692. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.09.002
Zeier, J. D., & Newman, J. P. (2013). Feature-based attention and conflict monitoring in criminal
offenders: Interactive relations of psychopathy with anxiety and externalizing. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 122(3), 797-806. doi: 10.1037/a0033873