Think about the popular image of a CEO—one shared by quite a few boards. He or she is extraordinarily charismatic, superhumanly self-confident, and completely cool under pressure. They might also be self-involved, ruthless, and willing to manipulate, or even harm, others to achieve their own or their company’s goals.
Does that sound like a CEO you know, or at least one you’ve seen on screen?
These traits, embodied by characters like Logan Roy from Succession and even James Bond, apply to more than just a select few. They are very real, and very dangerous—especially when it comes to high-impact leader selection.
Hiring a high-impact leader is a mixed bag. On one hand, who wouldn’t want a chance at a Steve Jobs or an Alan Mulally? On the other hand, the easiest way to make an impact is to fail, and most high-impact leaders have far more in common with Al Dunlap or Adam Neumann than Jobs. Companies that are nevertheless willing to take the risk sometimes ask me to help them think through how best to evaluate the candidates.
Here’s how I help them make the best choice.
First, though, a definition: There are two types of leaders—filtered and unfiltered. As I explain in Picking Presidents: How to Make the Most Consequential Decision in the World, filtered leaders are establishment products, people who have moved up the ranks over the span of years and been fully evaluated by the system. They are almost always good, but rarely great. Unfiltered leaders, on the other hand, have not been fully evaluated by the system. This is both their greatest strength and their greatest weakness: Their lack of evaluation means they can make brilliant decisions that organizational elites would have rejected. It also means that unfiltered leaders can have significant flaws that make giving them power a near-certain catastrophe.
Picking an unfiltered leader is always a gamble. If you must do it, you want to maximize your odds of success.
Where do you start?
The first step is to avoid disaster. You can reach for greatness after you’ve ensured you’re not picking the next Elizabeth Holmes. To do that, you need to identify and eliminate candidates with facades—characteristics that make someone impressive on superficial examination but are likely to be profoundly harmful once you put someone in power.
The most important personality traits to identify and avoid are what psychologists ominously call the Dark Triad: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy. James Bond, again, is a useful example. The traits that comprise the triad are related and overlapping, but nonetheless distinct. It is entirely possible to have one or two of them—they often occur in the same person (this is termed “comorbidity”). Although each trait is distinct, what unites them is their ability to deliver short term benefits—like creating a positive first impression—but large long-term costs.
Narcissists have an unreasonably high level of self-importance and feel that they deserve privileges and special treatment. Narcissism comes in two flavors—grandiose and vulnerable. Grandiose narcissists tend to be dominant, self-assured, immodest, exhibitionistic, and aggressive, while vulnerable narcissists are introverted, interpersonally cold and hostile, negative, entitled and egocentric, and have a profound need for recognition.
Narcissism’s short-term benefits make it particularly likely that a search for an unfiltered leader will land on a narcissist. Narcissists have high levels of social dominance, are often confident and charismatic, and generate a strong positive first impression (although a long-term negative one). This may be driven by their greater than normal willingness to self-promote and highlight their accomplishments. But people tire of narcissists over the long run. Even more damaging, narcissistic leaders often lack empathy, have poor listening skills, manipulate those around them, are unable to take criticism, pursue personal goals instead of organizational ones, are volatile, more likely to engage in unethical behavior, and undermine teamwork by dominating discussions and taking credit for others’ work.
Next is Machiavellianism, a personality trait that drives people’s willingness and ability to be manipulative and ruthless in the pursuit of power. Machiavellians are sly, deceptive, distrusting, and manipulative and are characterized by a particularly cynical take on human nature and a calculating and deceitful interpersonal style. Machiavellians are distinct from Narcissists in that they are often content to be the puppet master behind the scenes instead of the center of attention. Machiavellians tend to be more strategic, hide information from their colleagues, and are more likely to engage in abuse and bullying at work.
Machiavellian traits can be useful in a leader. Franklin Roosevelt, for example, was famous for his tendency to hide information and play members of his administration off against one another. This had high costs for them, but it helped make him one of the greatest of all presidents. Roosevelt, however, harnessed these Machiavellian tendencies to the cause of his country. Most Machiavellians are entirely self-interested and use their political and strategic skills to advance themselves, often at the cost of the organization they lead.
The third component of the Dark Triad is Psychopathy, and for most of us, fictional serial killers spring to mind. No one would ever think of Theodore Roosevelt—the heroic soldier-scholar who invented the modern Presidency, right? Yet psychologists who have evaluated presidents (pre-Trump) score Roosevelt as the most psychopathic person ever to win the Oval Office.
Some psychopathic traits can both help people rise to power and exercise it effectively. Psychopathic traits actually appear in two clusters (both of which often appear in the same person). One, which psychologists call “Fearless Dominance” consists of traits like boldness, charm, and physical fearlessness. Theodore Roosevelt is the perfect example of fearless dominance. A second cluster, however, known as “Impulsive Antisociality,” is characterized by irresponsibility, a lack of self control, and an inability or unwillingness to follow rules and social norms. Moderate levels of fearless dominance may actually be a benefit in leaders (which helps to explain why our popular image of a great leader has so much overlap with psychopathic traits), but only if it is not paired with Impulsive Antisociality.
The Dark Triad poses a significant challenge in leadership selection, often hidden behind a veneer of charisma and initial success. And while diagnosing a clinical psychopath requires a trained psychologist, a lay understanding of the subclinical manifestations of these traits can help determine whether the presence of these traits would compromise a candidate’s effectiveness as a leader. To effectively evaluate an unfiltered candidate, I recommend a three-step approach:
- Extend your evaluation period. Spend substantial time with the candidate in a variety of settings. The true nature of a leader emerges with prolonged interaction, and these tendencies do not contain themselves to the office. How they treat their friends and family can be illuminating. People who treat their colleagues callously often do the same to their families as well. Al Dunlap, for example, skipped his own mother’s funeral.
- Consult long-term associates. Connect with those who have worked alongside the candidate for years. Their insights can reveal patterns of behavior that short-term interactions might miss. If possible, go back to people who had close contact but no longer do. Perhaps most important is to gather information from a candidate’s subordinates. Dark Triad personality types are usually remarkably skilled at “kicking down and kissing up.” If I could only know one piece of information about a candidate for leadership, this would be it—not what their bosses think of them, but what their juniors did.
- Analyze decision-making processes. Look beyond outcomes to understand how the candidate arrives at decisions. A leader’s approach to problem-solving is often more telling than their successes alone. Are a candidate’s successes a product of real superior insight? Or are they actually the consequence of luck, or even stealing credit from others?
The Dark Triad works its magic by showing us exactly what we want to see—a brilliant, successful, charismatic individual—and then using that image against us, to hide the pathologies underneath. It is precisely that camouflage that makes it so hard to detect, and so dangerous.
There is no guaranteed way to pick a great leader. But doing the work to avoid someone with any of the traits of the Dark Triad is a key part of avoiding a disaster—always the first step on the road to greatness.