Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I've worked for one that clearly was, fitting all of the attributes. He was a short term success and long term failure but I'm sure there are a few that continue to experience success right through to an early retirement. Does our economic system reward this behavior?

So maybe there’s a sweet spot? A point on the spectrum somewhere short of full-blown psychopathy that’s most conducive to success in business.

That’s possible. Obviously there are items on the checklist you don’t want to have if you’re a boss. You don’t want poor behavioral controls. It’d be better if you don’t have promiscuous behavior. It’d be better if you don’t have serious behavioral problems in childhood, because that will eventually come out. But you do want lack of empathy, lack of remorse, glibness, superficial charm, manipulativeness. I think the other positive traits for psychopaths in business is need for stimulation, proneness to boredom. You want somebody who can’t sit still, who’s constantly thinking about how to better things.

A really interesting question is whether psychopathy can be a positive thing. Some psychologists would say yes, that there are certain attributes like coolness under pressure, which is sort of a fundamental positive. But Robert Hare would always say no, that in the absence of empathy, which is the definition in psychology of a psychopath, you will always get malevolence.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovi ... reat-ceos/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

psychopaths? maybe. Sociopaths? DEFINITELY

I don't know about all that.

What I DO know is that your use of the possessive when the plural is clearly more appropriate is unconscionable.

kalm wrote:I've worked for one that clearly was, fitting all of the attributes. He was a short term success and long term failure but I'm sure there are a few that continue to experience success right through to an early retirement. Does our economic system reward this behavior?

So maybe there’s a sweet spot? A point on the spectrum somewhere short of full-blown psychopathy that’s most conducive to success in business.

That’s possible. Obviously there are items on the checklist you don’t want to have if you’re a boss. You don’t want poor behavioral controls. It’d be better if you don’t have promiscuous behavior. It’d be better if you don’t have serious behavioral problems in childhood, because that will eventually come out. But you do want lack of empathy, lack of remorse, glibness, superficial charm, manipulativeness. I think the other positive traits for psychopaths in business is need for stimulation, proneness to boredom. You want somebody who can’t sit still, who’s constantly thinking about how to better things.

A really interesting question is whether psychopathy can be a positive thing. Some psychologists would say yes, that there are certain attributes like coolness under pressure, which is sort of a fundamental positive. But Robert Hare would always say no, that in the absence of empathy, which is the definition in psychology of a psychopath, you will always get malevolence.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovi ... reat-ceos/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Offhanded slam at corporations.

Having said that, psychopaths are found at all socioeconomic levels, i.e., being a psychopath isn't a precursor to corporate advancement.

Having said that, I will concur there are organizations who irrationally seek "type A" personalities for management, under the impression "energetic changers" equate with increasing efficiency. From experience, I've found the "changer" stigma originates mostly from management with little experience, but extensive academic background. Change for the sake of change is one of the worst errors in business...and generally emanates from psychopathic "type A" personalities (not saying all type "A" are psychopathic, but will assert virtually all psychopath are type "A".
As for the anti-social element, I would support the assertion that most "anti-social" personalities either seek mgmt promotion or wind up leaving an organization. Genuinely anti-social personalities need to exist in a management level with little supervision to survive.

CID1990 wrote:I don't know about all that.

What I DO know is that your use of the possessive when the plural is clearly more appropriate is unconscionable.

Fixed it for ya Cidney.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I don't know about all that.

What I DO know is that your use of the possessive when the plural is clearly more appropriate is unconscionable.

Fixed it for ya Cidney.

Thanks.

I have this thing about apostrophes and people who write "there" when they mean "their".