Individuals with aggressive, rule-breaking and anti-social tendencies are over-represented among executive leadership

[ksen]

Kevin Dutton, author of The Wisdom of Psychopaths(link is external), argues “Traits that are common among psychopathic serial killers—a grandiose sense of self-worth, persuasiveness, superficial charm, ruthlessness, lack of remorse and the manipulation of others—are also shared by politicians and world leaders. Individuals, in other words, running not from the police. But for office. Such a profile allows those who present with these traits to do what they like when they like, completely unfazed by the social, moral or legal consequences of their actions.”

In their book, Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go To Work(link is external), Paul Babiak and Robert Hare, argue while psychopaths may not be ideally suited for traditional work environments by virtue of a lack of desire to develop good interpersonal relationships, they have other abilities such as reading people and masterful influence and persuasion skills that can make them difficult to be seen as the psychopaths they are. According to their and others’ studies somewhere between 3-25% of executives could be assessed as psychopaths, a much higher figure than the general population figure of 1%.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...y-are-there-more-psychopaths-in-the-boardroom

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Kevin Dutton, author of The Wisdom of Psychopaths(link is external), argues “Traits that are common among psychopathic serial killers—a grandiose sense of self-worth, persuasiveness, superficial charm, ruthlessness, lack of remorse and the manipulation of others—are also shared by politicians and world leaders. Individuals, in other words, running not from the police. But for office. Such a profile allows those who present with these traits to do what they like when they like, completely unfazed by the social, moral or legal consequences of their actions.”

In their book, Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go To Work(link is external), Paul Babiak and Robert Hare, argue while psychopaths may not be ideally suited for traditional work environments by virtue of a lack of desire to develop good interpersonal relationships, they have other abilities such as reading people and masterful influence and persuasion skills that can make them difficult to be seen as the psychopaths they are. According to their and others’ studies somewhere between 3-25% of executives could be assessed as psychopaths, a much higher figure than the general population figure of 1%.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...y-are-there-more-psychopaths-in-the-boardroom

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE KSEN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!!

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Tigers!]

3%-25% spread is awful wide.

Have a look at any parliament to see that in action.

 

[DBT]

The order of priority with many CEO's and executives probably goes roughly along the lines of;

1- Own position, security, tenure, remuneration (not necessarily in that order).
2- The interests of the company (profits)
3 - increasing and/or maintaining profit.
4- reducing expenditure or maintaining low running costs, including labour.
5 - Sustaining a viable worker management relationship.

 

[Random Person]

The order of priority with many CEO's and executives probably goes roughly along the lines of;

1- Own position, security, tenure, remuneration (not necessarily in that order).
2- The interests of the company (profits)
3 - increasing and/or maintaining profit.
4- reducing expenditure or maintaining low running costs, including labour.
5 - Sustaining a viable worker management relationship.

I'd say it's simply enlightened self interest and the ability to execute a plan.

 

[ronburgundy]

Sure, people who repeatedly take from others more than they deserve, with selfish disregard for fairness and decency are more likely to have stable negative personality traits that promote such unethical behaviors. That should be true whether they engage in such actions as a CEO or a decades-long welfare recipient with multiple children.

This OP actually supports that of the other thread it is trying to mock, rather than countering it. Valid theories of behavior should be able to account for behaviors in very different contexts.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Sure, people who repeatedly take from others more than they deserve, with selfish disregard for fairness and decency are more likely to have stable negative personality traits that promote such unethical behaviors. That should be true whether they engage in such actions as a CEO or a decades-long welfare recipient with multiple children.

This OP actually supports that of the other thread it is trying to mock, rather than countering it. Valid theories of behavior should be able to account for behaviors in very different contexts.

Has there been a study done of "decades-long welfare recipient(s) with multiple children" that proves these people have a "selfish disregard for fairness and decency?"

 

[ksen]

Sure, people who repeatedly take from others more than they deserve, with selfish disregard for fairness and decency are more likely to have stable negative personality traits that promote such unethical behaviors. That should be true whether they engage in such actions as a CEO or a decades-long welfare recipient with multiple children.

This OP actually supports that of the other thread it is trying to mock, rather than countering it. Valid theories of behavior should be able to account for behaviors in very different contexts.

nah

 

[DBT]

The order of priority with many CEO's and executives probably goes roughly along the lines of;

1- Own position, security, tenure, remuneration (not necessarily in that order).
2- The interests of the company (profits)
3 - increasing and/or maintaining profit.
4- reducing expenditure or maintaining low running costs, including labour.
5 - Sustaining a viable worker management relationship.

I'd say it's simply enlightened self interest and the ability to execute a plan.

Sometimes but not always. But it does skew any gains and benefits towards those in control. Usually to the detriment of those not in positions of power or control.

 

[rousseau]

Those who make it to leadership roles have many common qualities, this being one of them. They're usually attractive, healthy, know what to say when, look smart, value wealth, and don't mind making unpopular decisions to acquire more wealth for themselves. Some aren't psychopatic, just very smart, and end up pushed into leadership roles where they find themselves stressed out and over-worked.

The problem is the hierarchical nature of organizations. The person who starts the company gives themselves all of the power and money. With that power comes the ability to dictate who will be his/her peers. And what's common about the people at the top? They make a lot of money. So if you offer a lot of money to those who reach the top, you're naturally going to attract people that are, for the most part, attracted by money. And people who are only attracted by money tend to have anti-social traits, hence the skew towards psychopathy among executives.

If you were to flatten an organization and make management a lateral move away from worker roles, you would attract people who actually wanted to manage into those roles, and the organization would be more effective because of it. The trouble with that is that the people with the power to flatten the organization are the ones making the money.

Might just be how humans naturally organize themselves.

 

[untermensche]

People need to watch the documentary "The Corporation" (2003).

The people running corporations are trapped in institutional roles. The corporation as an institution is sociopathic.

The people running them need not be for corporations to do all the harm they do.

 

[DBT]

Might just be how humans naturally organize themselves.

Not just humans. A pecking order is quite common in many species.

 

[untermensche]

Might just be how humans naturally organize themselves.

Not just humans. A pecking order is quite common in many species.

Yes, almost exclusively based on physical strength.

Humans can organize themselves in any way they choose however. We have evolved beyond the chicken and the baboon.

Humans can choose an authoritarian top down structure, based on monarchy and the military.

Or they might try a lateral power system, like the Jews did in the early kibbutzim.

And being humans they can make either system work.

It is a choice.

Top down dictatorship, or something less fitting a chicken.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Not just humans. A pecking order is quite common in many species.

Yes, almost exclusively based on physical strength.

Humans can organize themselves in any way they choose however. We have evolved beyond the chicken and the baboon.

Humans can choose an authoritarian top down structure, based on monarchy and the military.

Or they might try a lateral power system, like the Jews did in the early kibbutzim.

And being humans they can make either system work.

It is a choice.

Top down dictatorship, or something less fitting a chicken.

No. The issue is that the hierarchical structure is the most efficient form for organizing a large group of people. Kibbutz stay small, amish villages stay small.

 

[untermensche]

No. The issue is that the hierarchical structure is the most efficient form for organizing a large group of people. Kibbutz stay small, amish villages stay small.

The Spanish Anarchists had huge communities and were highly industrialized.

And this concept of "efficiency" is incredibly ill defined.

For a dictator to command arbitrarily a top down structure is most efficient for that use.

But if an institution is not for that use then top down is not in any way more "efficient", whatever arbitrary definition you want to attach to that label.

 

[arkirk]

No. The issue is that the hierarchical structure is the most efficient form for organizing a large group of people. Kibbutz stay small, amish villages stay small.

The Spanish Anarchists had huge communities and were highly industrialized.

And this concept of "efficiency" is incredibly ill defined.

For a dictator to command arbitrarily a top down structure is most efficient for that use.

But if an institution is not for that use then top down is not in any way more "efficient", whatever arbitrary definition you want to attach to that label.

I keep thinking about China's great leap forward and how that killed possibly 30 million people creating great masses of worthless metal and a population going hungry precisely because it was centrally led by a command structure with a sociopathic desire to "industrialize." It motivated millions of people to perform acts of absolutely no value to the detriment of things like food production, housing maintenance, etc. etc. etc. The "efficiency" Colorado seems to feel is important is that of a structure such as the Pol Pot regime that involved everyone and demands their compliance and participation without a clue where that many people motivated thus may end up.

I know a couple of modern leaders who put their heads together and think great heaps of money will make everything alright...as long as the money is theirs:

 

[DBT]

Not just humans. A pecking order is quite common in many species.

.

Humans can organize themselves in any way they choose however. We have evolved beyond the chicken and the baboon.

Humans can choose an authoritarian top down structure, based on monarchy and the military.

Or they might try a lateral power system, like the Jews did in the early kibbutzim.

And being humans they can make either system work.

It is a choice.

Top down dictatorship, or something less fitting a chicken.

It's surprising how much of human behaviour is unconscious and driven by instinct.

Then if not instinct, self interest.

Given self interest as a driver of decision making/behaviour, a pecking order being established is inevitable.

Hardly any different to chickens or Chimps or Baboons, all of which have a hierarchy, hence a 'pecking order.'

 

[rousseau]

Not just humans. A pecking order is quite common in many species.

Yes, almost exclusively based on physical strength.

Humans can organize themselves in any way they choose however. We have evolved beyond the chicken and the baboon.

Humans can choose an authoritarian top down structure, based on monarchy and the military.

Or they might try a lateral power system, like the Jews did in the early kibbutzim.

And being humans they can make either system work.

It is a choice.

Top down dictatorship, or something less fitting a chicken.

I don't know if it's as much of a choice as it seems.

A person starts a multi-million dollar company. They have the choice between retaining the brunt of that money and power over the company, or ceding it to someone else. In the first case they're unimaginably wealthy, in the second case they're not. Is that really much of a choice, even for the most 'moral' person? At the end of it all we can't deny that we're material beings who depend on energy, so having more energy is always better than not.

From then on the organization is going to be a push/pull of members trying to acquire more money, because none of them are likely to act outside of their own interest, unless acting within their interest means they don't want more responsibility.

I'm sure there are many cases where we could refuse hierarchy, but it would take a lot of people throwing away a lot of money, and that's why it doesn't happen.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Those who make it to leadership roles have many common qualities, this being one of them. They're usually attractive, healthy, know what to say when, look smart, value wealth, and don't mind making unpopular decisions to acquire more wealth for themselves. Some aren't psychopatic, just very smart, and end up pushed into leadership roles where they find themselves stressed out and over-worked.

The problem is the hierarchical nature of organizations. The person who starts the company gives themselves all of the power and money. With that power comes the ability to dictate who will be his/her peers. And what's common about the people at the top? They make a lot of money. So if you offer a lot of money to those who reach the top, you're naturally going to attract people that are, for the most part, attracted by money. And people who are only attracted by money tend to have anti-social traits, hence the skew towards psychopathy among executives.

If you were to flatten an organization and make management a lateral move away from worker roles, you would attract people who actually wanted to manage into those roles, and the organization would be more effective because of it. The trouble with that is that the people with the power to flatten the organization are the ones making the money.

Might just be how humans naturally organize themselves.

The Op is not about hierarchy but the over representation of sociopaths in positions of power within hierarchy. If, as you say, hierarchy is the problem, it stands to reason that problematic people would be attracted to it. You are in effect proving the OP not disputing it.