Hannibal Lecter. Anton Chigurh. Patrick Bateman—when we hear the word “psychopath,” fictional serial killers may spring to mind. Or maybe it’s their real-life counterparts: John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Richard Ramirez. No one would ever think of Theodore Roosevelt—the heroic soldier-scholar who invented the modern presidency, right? Yet psychologists who have evaluated presidents score Theodore Roosevelt as the most psychopathic person ever to win the Oval Office (pre-Trump, that is).
Psychopathy exists on a continuum. All of us—from Mother Teresa to Ted Bundy—fall somewhere on that continuum. These traits appear in different clusters, which often exist within the same person—but not always. One cluster, which psychologists call “Fearless Dominance,” consists of traits like boldness, charm, and physical fearlessness (of which Theodore Roosevelt is the perfect example).
Look and you’ll see that TR didn’t just manufacture our understanding of what it means to be president; he’s also the prototype of the present-day CEO. A spellbinding speaker? He literally coined the phrase “bully pulpit.” An adventurer? Even apart from his Medal of Honor-winning combat record he explored uncharted branches of the Amazon and helped bring downhill skiing to the United States. Intelligent? He wrote 40 books and hundreds of articles. Ruthless? He used the Justice Department to gather information on those he saw as enemies of his reforms. A quick ascent to power? He was, at 42, the youngest person ever to become President. Imagine a combination of Bill Gates’s intellect, Mark Zuckerberg’s learning mixed martial arts, Jamie Dimon’s charisma, and Sam Altman’s ambition, all of them equipped with the full power of the presidency, and you can start to imagine what he must have been like IRL.
But most psychopathic traits are not beneficial. A second cluster, known as “Impulsive Antisociality,” can be toxic in leadership (but is often camouflaged by the aura of Fearless Dominance). This cluster is characterized by irresponsibility, a lack of self-control, and an inability or unwillingness to follow rules and social norms. While very small levels of impulsive antisociality may be helpful in winning in-office political battles, too much renders someone unable to function productively in any type of organization.
Psychopaths’ behavior may be driven by a diminished sensitivity to negative affect. The amygdala, which processes fear, is less reactive in psychopaths. Extreme psychopaths may appear—or actually be—fearless (it’s a lot easier to be a racecar driver if you literally feel less fear than most people would). They generally show less response to negative stimuli of all kinds. They may even find such situations to be enjoyable instead of threatening. And while the stereotype is that psychopaths lack empathy, that’s not quite correct. Psychopaths often have superb cognitive empathy—they understand what others are feeling, which helps them manipulate others. What they lack is affective empathy, the ability to share feelings with others. Most people react to seeing someone’s pain by feeling a lesser version of it themselves, which makes them reluctant to hurt others. Psychopaths, though, have a diminished response to their own pain—so why would they care about yours?
This flattened affect, coupled with other psychopathic traits, can help people thrive in harsh environments like today’s corporate world. As Paul Babiak and Robert D. Hare, leading experts on psychopathy, highlight in Snakes in Suits, psychopaths are often extremely skilled at reading people, have high verbal communication skills (often driven by their exceptional self-confidence), and are gifted at impression management. These skills, when combined with a lack of empathy and remorse, can create a potent, albeit potentially destructive, leadership style.
Roosevelt’s boldness, charisma, and relentless drive were crucial to his success. They are also classic traits of people with high levels of psychopathy, which can help elevate people to wealth and power in organizations of all kinds. In fact, the profession in which psychopaths are most overrepresented is CEO. Psychopaths are so frequently in positions of power that understanding how they get there and what it means when they do is vitally important for anyone in any kind of organization.
People with elevated levels of psychopathic traits don’t need to be serial killers to be dangerous. A CEO who lies without compunction, is purely self-motivated, and has no ethical constraints is a recipe for disaster. (If you doubt that, try to contact Theranos, Enron, or WorldCom.) Unfortunately, this dangerous combination of traits is not uncommon in the upper echelons of the corporate world. In fact, Babiak and Hare estimate that among corporate executives, the overall rate of psychopaths is 3.9%. In general, the higher you go in an organization, the more prevalent psychopaths become. The rate is much higher among CEOs: in fact, the consensus among researchers is that CEOs are almost as likely as prisoners to be psychopathic. (Among prisoners, parolees, and those on probation, the rate is vastly higher, with one study estimating that 25% are psychopaths.) One estimate found that 21% of [American CEOs have] clinically elevated levels of psychopathy.
Why? Today there are very few “company men.” Outside of those led by their founder, how many are led by someone who spent their entire career in the company? Outsider CEOs are now more common than insiders, which means that they are being chosen based on far more superficial assessments (with more attention paid to first impressions and surface numbers) and far less on the sort of deep understanding of character and capabilities that only comes with time and prolonged contact.
This superficial selection process often prioritizes traits that can be easily observed in interviews and resumes. Research by my friend and colleague Rakesh Khurana shows that when boards hire CEOs, they often look first for charisma. Few criteria could be more favorable to psychopaths. Charisma is often followed by an ability to be cool and decisive under pressure, both traits that psychopaths have in abundance (it’s easy to not feel pressure when, because of a suppressed response to negative affect, you literally don’t feel it).
Ruthlessness, too, is often sought after. Take Al Dunlap, the infamously destructive CEO of Scott Paper and Sunbeam. He so reveled in firing people that he dubbed himself “Chainsaw Al” and titled his autobiography Mean Business (the double meaning was entirely intentional). Despite his reputation, two separate boards hired him. Or take Elizabeth Holmes, whose intimidation of one of her former employees helped drive him to suicide.
The changing nature of business has created fertile ground for psychopaths. Unlike the large, stable bureaucracies that dominated American corporate life in the 1950s, today’s companies prize flat hierarchies, rapid action, and constant change. While these shifts bring benefits, they also carry hidden costs. In times of organizational turmoil, psychopathic personality traits like the appearance of confidence, strength, and calm, can seem like the answer to a company’s problems. Moreover, psychopathic individuals, known for disregarding rules and excelling at manipulation, find these flexible organizational structures particularly inviting.
With psychopaths so overrepresented in upper management, the odds are high that you’ll encounter one in your career. So what can be done?
A deeper understanding of the “Dark Triad” personality traits – psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism—is a good starting point. These traits are related but distinct, and recognizing their nuances is crucial. For boards and hiring committees, extending the candidate evaluation period and consulting long-term associates of the candidate can provide valuable insights. Additionally, implementing assessment models that analyze a candidate’s decision-making process can help organizations minimize risk and maximize success in their leadership choices.
The larger goal, though, is to foster a nuanced understanding of leadership, recognizing that certain traits can be both beneficial and dangerous. By making informed decisions about who we entrust with power, we can shape the future of our companies—and the lives of those within them.