1. Psychopathy and Leadership
By Oleg Nekrassovski
Introduction
Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a specific cluster of
behaviors and inferred personality traits, most of which are viewed negatively by society
(Hare, 1999). Psychopaths often ‘distinguish’ themselves as social predators, who use
charm, manipulation, and even violence to get what they want. They don’t feel guilt or
regret from hurting others or violating social norms. As a result, they often end up in
prison (Hare, 1999). All of this stems from the fact that psychopaths have a complete
lack of conscience and are incapable of empathy (Hare, 1999); as well as having low
emotional reactivity and a fundamental lack of anxiety (Zeier & Newman, 2013). Despite
their criminal and violent reputation, many psychopaths avoid violent and criminal
behavior, and instead favor working in leadership positions in legal organizations. These
Corporate Psychopaths are often viewed as sinister masterminds dangerous to
organizations (Babiak & Hare, 2006). However, the present paper will seek to show that
(1) despite their negative reputation, Corporate Psychopaths have many positive
leadership qualities, and that (2) psychopathy and its positive manifestations are
controversial topics which have been insufficiently explored, especially empirically.
Characteristics of Psychopathic Leaders
Despite their negative reputation, some authors argue that Corporate
Psychopaths have many positive leadership qualities. For example, a paper, written by
Lilienfeld et al. (2012), first gives a quick overview of psychopathy, psychopathic traits,
and various ways to assess them; and then provides an excellent overview of various
prior studies that argue for the socially beneficial value of many psychopathic traits,
especially in some occupations, including leadership positions. Lilienfeld et al. (2012)
empirically tested this idea by assessing 42 U.S. presidents for psychopathy and seeing
whether discovered psychopathic traits, among these presidents, correlate with various
measures of their success as leaders. In particular, Lilienfeld et al. (2012) measured the
personalities, a large variety of psychopathic personality traits, and job performance and
behavior in the 42 U.S. presidents; using a variety of questionnaires and rating tools, all
of which were completed by high-level experts on each of the U.S. presidents under
study. Data analysis was conducted using a variety of appropriate, complex quantitative
techniques. And the results were as numerous and diverse as the psychological and
behavioral qualities of the U.S. presidents that were measured. More narrowly,
however, Lilienfeld et al. (2012) found that especially boldness (an amalgam of

2. potentially adaptive traits, such as immunity to stress, emotional resilience,
venturesomeness, social poise, and charisma), associated with psychopathy, was
positively correlated with a host of indicators of good presidential leadership, such as
good Congressional relations, good crisis management skills, tendency to initiate new
projects, and being viewed as a figure of world-wide significance.
Others argue that employees with psychopathic traits are more likely to be
viewed favorably by their supervisors and subordinates, than employees without such
traits. In particular, psychopaths are good at presenting themselves as being with good
abilities, emotionally well-adjusted, reasonable, intelligent, successful, friendly, reliable,
trustworthy, loyal, and with healthy ambitions (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010).
This helps Corporate Psychopaths to rise within corporations by skillfully integrating
themselves with people. In addition, high personal charm and persuasiveness allows
Corporate Psychopaths to convince senior managers to have confidence in them
(Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010).
In addition, Corporate Psychopaths display polished and unemotional
decisiveness; which makes them look like ideal leaders (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, &
Galvin, 2010). Also, according to Mahmut, Homewood, and Stevenson (2007), this
superior executive function, characteristic of Corporate Psychopaths, may reduce the
risk of their involvement in unethical or illegal behavior. The roots of such traits are low
emotional reactivity and a fundamental lack of anxiety. In fact, a study by Zeier &
Newman (2013) starts off by noting that psychopaths, of a primary psychopathic
subtype, are characterized by low emotional reactivity and a fundamental lack of
anxiety. While the main purpose of this study was to address two questions. The first
question seeks to evaluate the generality of abnormal selective attention (i.e.
obliviousness to inhibitory information, which is peripheral to one’s current focus of
attention) demonstrated by primary psychopathic individuals. While its second question
seeks to explore the various analytical approaches to investigating psychopathy,
especially psychopathic subtypes. To answer these questions, Zeier and Newman
(2013) tested a total of 207 inmates (161 Caucasians, 42 African- Americans, three
Hispanics, and one multiracial) from a medium-security prison, on the modified flanker
task (for evaluating obliviousness to inhibitory information peripheral to one’s current
attention focus). However, participants who were younger than 18 or older than 45, had
a low intelligence score, were on psychotropic medications, had bipolar disorder or
psychosis, or produced extremely outlying scores during the test, were excluded. As
result, the final test sample consisted of 120 participants (Zeier & Newman, 2013). The
psychopathy of each participant was assessed using Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-
Revised (PCL-R); with 50 participants being judged to be non-psychopathic, 40 –
‘intermediately psychopathic,’ and 30 – fully psychopathic. The anxiety of participants
was measured using the Welsh Anxiety Scale, which led to 62 participants being

3. classified as low-anxious, and 58 as high-anxious. Finally, a brief form of the
Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) was completed by all participants
(Zeier & Newman, 2013). Zeier and Newman (2013) argue that while earlier studies
demonstrated obliviousness to spatial type of inhibitory information, peripheral to one’s
current attention focus, among primary psychopathic individuals; their study
demonstrates the generality of this selective attention abnormality, by demonstrating
that individuals with primary psychopathy are similarly oblivious to information which is
feature-based. Hence, Zeier and Newman (2013) conclude that, given that the main
“real-world” consequences of abnormal selective attention among psychopaths don’t
relate to spatial focus; their study helps to clarify this issue by demonstrating that the
disinhibited behavior, among psychopaths, reflects their failure to consider important
inhibitory, feature-based information (e.g., the possibility of getting punished or harmed)
after adopting a specific attentional set (e.g., an immediate focus on a specific goal).
An inability to consider important inhibitory, feature-based information (e.g., the
possibility of getting punished or harmed) after adopting a specific attentional set (e.g.,
an immediate focus on a specific goal), are traits which 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, such 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).
Relevant Characteristics of Effective Leaders
Studies describing effective leadership traits and styles, which may be
associated with psychopathic traits, are not hard to come by. For example, a study by
Van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt, and Alkema (2014) argues that leaders
who are believed to be effective and competent are more likely to be followed and
trusted. In addition, the presence of such leaders, in organizations, increases
organizational commitment and work engagement among their followers. Moreover,
leaders who show warmth, acceptance, and care to their followers, satisfy their
psychological need for relatedness. Finally, in times of uncertainty, for example, during
economic crises, people desire leaders who emphasize the needs of the organization
and act unconventionally and heroically (Van Dierendonck et al., 2014). More
specifically, however, Van Dierendonck et al. (2014) describe servant leadership (SL)
as a leadership style which involves (1) providing vision and acquiring trust and
credibility from one’s followers; (2) seeking to understand the abilities, potentials, goals,
needs, and desires of one’s followers, using one-on-one communication, so as to make
them perform at their best; and (3) focusing on developing one’s followers to the highest

4. potential, in areas such as task effectiveness, self-motivation, community stewardship,
and future leadership capabilities. In addition, Van Dierendonck et al. (2014) describe
transformational leadership (TFL) as a multidimensional style of leadership, which
includes (1) emphasizing the values and needs of the organization, over the values and
needs of the followers; (2) using rewards to create a greater focus on achieving high
outcomes; (3) serving as a motivating role model for one’s followers; and (4) putting
emphasis on one’s followers’ individual development.
When it comes to the details of the research conducted for Van Dierendonck et
al.’s (2014) paper; it becomes clear that the purpose of this research was to explore
various mediating mechanisms through which TFL and SL affect followers. These
mechanisms were explored through three studies. The first study focused on exploring
the different influence of SL and TFL on organizational commitment, through the
mediating mechanisms of leadership effectiveness and need satisfaction. It involved a
paper-and-pencil test which asked the participants to imagine being in given scenarios
of working under a leader of a company with the specified qualities. Environmental
uncertainty and leadership style were manipulated in the presented scenarios; and then
the extent to which the participants attributed leadership effectiveness, satisfaction of
followers’ needs, and commitment to the company, to these hypothetical leaders, were
measured (Van Dierendonck et al., 2014). 184 people, from the network of one of the
authors, constituted the participants of this study. 85 were males. 83 were females. The
gender of the rest (16) was unknown. The mean age was 37 years. The results of this
first study suggest that leaders who demonstrate TFL are perceived as being more
effective; while the leaders who demonstrate SL are perceived as being more capable
at fulfilling the needs of their followers (Van Dierendonck et al., 2014). The second study
compared TFL and SL to one another and to transactional and laissez-faire leadership.
200 hospital employees (mostly doctors and nurses) constituted the participants of this
study. 51 were males. 149 were females. The mean age was 39.6 years. All participants
had worked under a leader before. The data was gathered using a paper-and-pencil test
similar to the one used in the first study. The results of this second study showed that
when it comes to the satisfaction of psychological needs, perceived leadership
effectiveness, and work engagement; both TFL and SL have a greater overall influence
than laissez-faire leadership (Van Dierendonck et al., 2014). The objective of the third
study was to explore the extent to which TFL and SL are related to work engagement
and organizational commitment, through the mediating mechanisms of need satisfaction
and leadership effectiveness. 200 support staff of a major university constituted the
participants of this study. 116 were males. 84 were females. The mean age was 42.18
years. The data was gathered using a cross-sectional self-report survey. And this third
study found that SL is most strongly related to need satisfaction, while TFL is most
strongly related to perceived leadership effectiveness (Van Dierendonck et al., 2014).

5. Similarly, Kottke and Pelletier (2013) conducted two studies in order to illustrate
that it is possible to differentiate the employees’ perceptions of ethics of their immediate
supervisors, from their perceptions of ethics of top leadership of their organizations; and
also to show that such differentiation has important implications for organizations. In
both studies, perceptions of both immediate supervisor and top leadership ethics were
assessed using the Perceptions of Ethical Leadership Scale (PELS). The PELS is a 10-
item survey that asks respondents to rate their leader’s behavior. In Study 1, one
thousand employees were randomly chosen from the 18,000 that worked for one
government agency of a county in Southern California. The response rate was 42.5%.
62.2% of respondents were women. The average age of respondents was 45 years;
while they have been employed with this agency for an average of 9.5 years, with a
standard deviation of 8.5 years. The appropriate analysis of collected data showed that
the items constituting the PELS can be categorized meaningfully and statistically into
perceptions of the ethics of immediate supervisors and top leadership.
Study 2 was more noteworthy, in no small part because it started with an
extensive literature review and various hypotheses regarding various aspects of
organizational leadership. In particular, Kottke and Pelletier (2013) noted that 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 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. As a result, the authors hypothesized that employees’ level of confidence
in the top leadership of their organization would strongly correlate with their perceptions
of the level of ethical behavior exhibited by their top leaders. While the correlation
between confidence in top leadership and the perceived ethics of immediate
supervisors was predicted to be modest. Kottke and Pelletier (2013) also noted that
employee commitment decreases and their turnover increases whenever there is a
conflict between the ethical values of employees and perceived ethical values of their
immediate supervisors and top management. As a result, the authors hypothesized that
employees will be more likely to feel attached to and identify with their organizations
whenever they see their immediate supervisors and top leaders as ethical.
Study 2 participants consisted of employees from a variety of organizations, who
were recruited through snowball sampling and some other unspecified methods. A total
of 371 surveys were returned to the researchers. 69% of respondents were women;
while the respondents’ tenure, company and department size, and industry type were
quite variable. 70 participants were rejected, because they worked for their current
organization for less than one year (Kottke & Pelletier, 2013). Because Study 2 sought
to find relationships among a larger variety of organizational leadership variables than
Study 1, the measurement instruments it employed were not limited to PELS. In

6. particular, in addition to PELS, it used the Organizational Climate Scale to measure the
participants’ perception of the climate of their organizations; as well as the Top
Leadership Direction Scale to assess participants’ confidence in the direction provided
by their top management. Finally, Study 2 used the Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Scale to measure the degree to which employees ‘go above and beyond the call of duty’
in the course of their jobs; and the Organization Commitment Scale to measure
organizational commitment (Kottke & Pelletier, 2013). Data analysis demonstrated
strong correlation between perception of leadership, at both organizational levels, as
being ethical, and the perception of ethical climate in organizations. A strong, positive
correlation was also found between higher ratings of top leaders on ethical behavior and
ratings of their ability to set good directions for the organization; as well as between
higher ratings of leadership ethics, at both levels, and higher organizational commitment
of respondents. Finally, Study 2 found that employees who viewed their top leaders and
immediate supervisors as ethical, were more willing to ‘go above and beyond the call of
duty’ at work (Kottke & Pelletier, 2013).
Measuring Corporate Psychopathy
A number of instruments for measuring corporate psychopathy are in existence.
For example, a study by Mathieu, Hare, Jones, Babiak, and Neumann (2013), sought to
develop a new tool for measuring corporate psychopathy. It starts by noting that the
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), the ‘‘gold standard’’ measure of psychopathy
in clinical settings, can be modeled in terms of four strongly correlated unidimensional
factors. These four factors are Interpersonal (Superficial, Grandiose, Deceitful),
Affective (Lacks remorse, Lacks empathy, Doesn’t accept responsibility for actions),
Lifestyle (Impulsive, Lacks realistic goals, Irresponsible), and Antisocial (Poor
behavioral controls, Adolescent antisocial behavior, Adult antisocial behavior) (Mathieu
et al., 2013). Despite the PCL-R’s clear focus on ‘negative’ traits and behaviors in
forensic and clinical populations, Mathieu et al. (2013) go on to cite and summarize an
earlier empirical study of Corporate Psychopaths, using the PCL-R, which was
conducted by three of the authors of this article, and which found that the PCL-R—
particularly its interpersonal component—was positively associated with in-house
ratings of Charisma/Presentation style (creativity, strategic thinking and communication
skills), in addition to a number of negative behaviors. However, the PCL-R was deemed
to be unsuitable for assessing psychopathy in business settings; in no small part
because it is designed for being administered by qualified clinicians. Therefore Mathieu
et al. (2013) note that two of its authors set out to develop an instrument specifically for
measuring psychopathy in business/corporate settings; which would be valid and
reliable despite using only lay people to assess psychopathic traits in other people that
they know. The result was the 113-item Business-Scan 360. Not surprisingly, given the
authors’ exclusively negative view of psychopaths, the 113-items of this new instrument

7. were based on a multitude of behaviors, attitudes, and judgments considered
problematic (by human resources personnel and industrial/organizational psychologists)
in corporate succession plans (Mathieu et al., 2013). Most of the rest of this study
describes the refinement of this new measurement instrument, in line with the four PCL-
based factors of psychopathy, outlined above, until it contained only 20 items; as well as
its testing, on broad samples of employees, which demonstrated its reliability and
validity (Mathieu et al., 2013).
A nearly identical group of authors have already used the Business-Scan 360 (B-
Scan 360) to explore the possible effect of psychopathic leaders on their followers. In
particular, Mathieu, Neumann, Hare, and Babiak (2014) used this instrument, for
measuring corporate psychopathy, to investigate the relationships between employees’
perceptions of psychopathic traits in their supervisors, employees’ job satisfaction,
work–family conflict, and general psychological distress. Mathieu et al. (2014), initially
hypothesized that higher ratings of supervisors, on B-Scan 360 (indicative of greater
psychopathy), by their employees, would be negatively associated with employee
reports of job satisfaction and positively associated with employee reports of work–
family conflict and psychological distress. This hypothesis was tested on two samples.
Sample 1 consisted of 116 (85%) of all employees of a single branch of a large
Canadian financial institution. Of these, 99 (86.1%) were women, 17 (13.9%) were men,
and 16 (2 men, 14 women) were managers. While Sample 2 consisted of 476 (92%) of
all employees of a public service organization. Of these, 175 (36.8%) were women, 301
(63.3%) were men, and 99 (23 women, 76 men) were managers (Mathieu et al., 2014).
The participants of this study rated their immediate supervisors on the 20 items of the B-
Scan 360. While the psychological wellbeing and job satisfaction of the participants was
measured using the General Health Questionnaire-12 and the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire, respectively. Finally, five, relevant items from the work–family conflict,
family–work conflict, and affective experiences questionnaire were used to measure the
influence of work on family life of the participants. Overall, the resultant correlations
between the studied variables were as initially predicted by the authors (Mathieu et al.,
2014).
However, the value of such results, with regards to the consequences of
psychopathic leadership is, at best, unclear; because the controversy regarding
appropriate ways to measure psychopathy, outside of forensic and clinical settings, is
not new. For example, Mahmut et al. (2007) note that the Psychopathy Checklist-
Revised (PCL-R), the ‘‘gold standard’’ measure of psychopathy in clinical settings, is
inappropriate for measuring/detecting psychopathy in non-clinical setting; in no small
part because PCL-R’s psychopathy construct does not parallel various
conceptualizations of non-criminal psychopaths. Hence, Mahmut et al. (2007) note three
commonly used measures of non-criminal psychopathy: Levenson’s Primary and

8. Secondary Psychopathy scales (LPSP), the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI)
and the Behavioral Activation/Inhibition System scales.
Similarly, Lilienfeld et al. (2015) note two recent meta-analyses which suggested
that the total or factor scores on the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL-R) are
largely unrelated to boldness (an amalgam of potentially adaptive traits, such as
immunity to stress, emotional resilience, venturesomeness, social poise, and charisma),
as assessed by the Fearless Dominance dimension of the Psychopathic Personality
Inventory (PPI). This immediately raised questions regarding the connection between
largely adaptive traits, such as boldness, and psychopathy. Still, Lilienfeld et al. (2015)
argue that since PCL was developed and validated on forensic populations, it likely
places less emphasis, than other instruments for measuring psychopathy, on adaptive
traits, such as emotional resilience, social poise, and fearlessness. As a result, Lilienfeld
et al. (2015) attempted to extend the mentioned meta-analytic findings by addressing a
key question which wasn’t explicitly examined by those studies, namely the relationship
between boldness and non-PCL-based measures of psychopathy. To do so, they meta-
analytically synthesized data relevant to exploring the relationship between boldness
(as measured by the PPI or the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure [TriPM]) with total
scores on various non-PCL-based measures of psychopathy. All obtainable studies,
both published and unpublished, that used both (1) the PPI or its variants or the TriPM,
all of which include measures of boldness, and (2) non-PCL-based measures of
psychopathy, were included by Lilienfeld et al. (2015) into their meta-analysis. In total,
their meta-analysis ended up including 32 independent samples, from 28 studies, which
together contained 10,693 participants. The overall results of this meta-analysis
demonstrated a large to medium average weighted correlation between (a) non-PCL-
based measures of psychopathy and (b) boldness.
Models of Psychopathy
Lilienfeld, Watts, and Smith’s (2015) study focuses on describing three models of
‘successful’ psychopathy; with a ‘successful’ psychopath being, in their estimation, a
socially successful individual who displays many of the core features of psychopathy.
Thus, the authors note that according to the differential-severity model, successful
psychopathy simply constitutes a mild expression of clinical psychopathy. This model
sees psychopathy as a unitary construct. Hence, psychopathy can only differ between
individuals in its intensity; with successful psychopaths being afflicted with a less
intense form of psychopathy, which is identical in kind to that which afflicts clinical
psychopaths. Similarly, the moderated-expression model also views psychopathy as a
unitary construct; with successful psychopathy being an atypical manifestation of clinical
psychopathy. In particular, this model sees successful psychopaths as ‘innately’ no
different from clinical psychopaths; but, in whom, the socially harmful manifestations of
psychopathy have been negated by protective factors (extraneous to psychopathy

9. itself), such as effective parenting, intelligence, or intact executive functioning (Lilienfeld,
Watts, and Smith, 2015). In contrast to the first two models, the differential-configuration
model views successful and clinical psychopathies as being two constellations of
different personality traits; with traits such as boldness (an amalgam of potentially
adaptive traits, such as immunity to stress, emotional resilience, venturesomeness,
social poise, and charisma) and conscientiousness being among those comprising
successful, but not clinical, psychopathy. Hence, instead of seeing a unitary construct,
this model views psychopathy as a number of distinct combinations of various different
psychological traits (Lilienfeld, Watts, and Smith, 2015). The authors also suggest that
the differential-configuration model is consistent with the triarchic model of psychopathy.
The triarchic model of psychopathy is described by Patrick and Drislane’s (2015)
study. In particular, the authors argue that psychopathy, which is collectively
represented in different assessment instruments, can be fully described by a single
model - the triarchic model of psychopathy – which proposes that psychopathy consists
of three intersecting, but distinct, symptomatic (phenotypic) constructs: boldness,
disinhibition, and meanness. Boldness, as already mentioned, is a collection of largely
adaptive traits, such as immunity to stress, emotional resilience, venturesomeness,
social poise, and charisma. While disinhibition is seemingly the opposite, namely a
collection of traits such as a difficulty in regulating emotions, weak restraint,
impulsiveness, and mistrust and hostility towards others. Finally, meanness, is a
collection of largely socially harmful traits, such as self-empowerment through
destructiveness or cruelty, predatory exploitativeness, contempt toward others, lack of
affiliative capacity, and lack of empathy (Patrick & Drislane, 2015).
Other models of psychopathy put greater emphasis on the causes, rather than
symptoms, of psychopathy. For example, Hamilton, Hiatt Racer, and Newman’s (2015)
study starts off by noting that the field of psychopathy is dominated by two theoretical
camps. One of these camps consists of emotion-focused models, which propose that
psychopathy is rooted in a deficient ability to experience fear and learn from it, as well
as an inability to develop ‘moral’ emotions like empathy and guilt. Consequently,
according to this group of models, an absence of fear and remorse leads to disinhibited
behaviors, which characterize many psychopaths (Hamilton et al., 2015). However, the
second theoretical camp consists of attention-focused models of psychopathy, which, in
many ways, contradict the emotion-focused models of the first camp. In particular, this
group of models views psychopathy as stemming from information processing deficits;
and points to the fact that psychopathic individuals are incapable of processing
contextual information outside of their current attentional focus. This attentional deficit is
believed to undermine psychopaths’ ability to effectively regulate their behavior by
considering alternative, adaptive responses to situations (Hamilton et al., 2015). At the
same time, the attention-focused models, undermine their emotion-focused

10. counterparts, described earlier, by pointing to the fact that psychopaths show normal
fear response in experiments where emotion stimuli are the primary focus. In fact,
psychopathic individuals show seeming emotional deficits only when threat-relevant
cues are peripheral to a pre-established focus of their attention. However, Hamilton et
al. (2015) point out that both of these groups of models have their strengths; as a result,
in the early sections of their article they review both groups of models, by describing the
main models in each group. Next, the authors outline the limitations of these models,
and the deceptive nature of the emotion-attention dichotomy that separates the two
groups of these models. This is followed by a description of a novel theoretical
framework for psychopathy. According to this novel framework, proposed by the
authors, psychopathy stems from poor perceptual binding, which leads to a snowball
effect that disrupts the development of integrative networks and associative processing.
In addition, Hamilton et al. (2015) describe how this new framework can be used to
account for and conceptualize the full range of psychopathic deficits and traits; thus
breaking down the emotion-attention dichotomy inherent in prior psychopathy models.

11. References
Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. New
York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
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
Hamilton, R. K., Hiatt Racer, K., & Newman, J. P. (2015). Impaired integration in
psychopathy: A unified theory of psychopathic dysfunction. Psychological
Review, 122(4), 770-791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039703
Hare, R. (1999). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among
us. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
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
Lilienfeld, S. O., Smith, S. F., Sauvigné, K. C., Patrick, C. J., Drislane, L. E., Latzman,
R. D., & Krueger, R. F. (2015). Is boldness relevant to psychopathic personality?
Meta-analytic relations with non-psychopathy checklist-based measures of
psychopathy. Psychological Assessment. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000244
Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., Landfield, K., Watts, A. L., Rubenzer, S., &
Faschingbauer, T. R. (2012). Fearless dominance and the U.S. presidency:
Implications of psychopathic personality traits for successful and unsuccessful
political leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 489-
505. doi: 10.1037/a0029392
Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., & Smith, S. F. (2015). Successful psychopathy: A
scientific status report. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 298-
303. doi: 10.1177/0963721415580297
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

12. Mathieu, C., Hare, R. D., Jones, D. N., Babiak, P., & Neumann, C. S. (2013). Factor
structure of the B-Scan 360: A measure of corporate psychopathy. Psychological
Assessment, 25(1), 288-293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029262
Mathieu, C., Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Babiak, P. (2014). A dark side of
leadership: Corporate psychopathy and its influence on employee well-being and
job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 83-88.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.010
Patrick, C. J., & Drislane, L. E. (2015). Triarchic model of psychopathy: Origins,
operationalizations, and observed linkages with personality and general
psychopathology. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 627-643. doi:
10.1111/jopy.12119
Van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., De Windt, N., & Alkema, J. (2014). Same
difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and
transformational leadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership
Quarterly, 25(3), 544-562. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.014
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