Psychopathy has been described to possess a myriad of characteristics that range from naivety, impulsivity, immaturity, and flighty to cunning, exploitative, and disruptive (Millon, Simonsen, Birket-Smith, " Davis, 2002). Besides, they have been shown to also exhibit patterns of irresponsibility and lack of appropriate life plans. Their irritability and hostility are shown to accompany their behavior that in most cases is considered immoral to many people. In other considerations, psychopaths have been shown to have episodes of extreme discomfort after their actions prove harmful to others. The characteristics are a demonstration of the emotional deficits of such individuals. In the clinical setting, the diagnosis of psychopathy is done using the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) (Kiehl " Sinnott-Armstrong, 2013). The critical aspect of the diagnosis is the interviews that are aimed at assessing the personality dimensions of the individual. The primary points of consideration are the Factor 1 and Factor 2 personality dimensions. For factor 1, the individual is assessed for interpersonal and reflective affective traits. As for factor 2, the focus is on the unstable lifestyle habits and antisocial traits. In almost all cases, the psychopath is expected to demonstrate high levels of grossly inflated and narcissistic view about oneself. The egocentric and sense of entitlement will be easy to mark out as the recurrent patterns of their behavior. Although not common in all cases, psychopaths can also have the arrogance that is coupled with shameless domineering and love for power. Even when they are faced with legal, personal, or financial challenges, psychopaths may be unperturbed (Hare, 2011). Such patterns have been associated with the disengagement patterns that make them disconnect themselves from the reality. The characteristics are typical of the altered state of conscience.
Although the specific features of psychopaths cannot be pinned down, it is crucial to note that the characteristics vary from one person to another. Cooke, Forth, " Hare (2012) indicates that there is evidence that cross-cultural variations in the symptoms of psychopathy exist. For instance, aggressive behavior has been shown to vary from one person to another in terms of frequency and severity. Also, the trigger factors could vary widely among the individuals. In other cases, it has been shown that some psychopaths could choose to withdraw rather than resort to violence when faced with a dispute (Cooke et al., 2012). On the other hand, the characteristics of psychopathy have been shown to follow the cultural values of the people. On this note, the characteristics could then be transmitted through the popular culture. Some of the most common features of psychopathy driven by culture are the narcissism and grandiosity.
Other than psychopathy demonstrating culture-specific patterns, environmental factors have also been shown to play a critical role in shaping the characteristics of psychopathy. For instance, from a socio-biological view, Cooke et al. (2012) demonstrate that individualistic societies tend to enhance characteristics that are key to the syndrome of psychopathy. Such societies propel the enculturation process that then fosters absence of responsibility for others that is marked by grandiosity and glibness (Cooke et al., 2012). In the individualistic societies, competition is one of the key features that define the way of life of the people. The competitiveness has been shown to be one of the factors that then trigger psychopathic like features. Basically, as a society gets into the competitive mood, social stratification, and segregation manifest. Hence, the less privileged individuals will tend to feel inferior, depressed, and pessimistic. In the end, such individuals are more likely to engage in alternative competitive strategies such as adoption of the antisocial behavior (Cooke et al., 2012). Therefore, people may start to demonstrate the patterns that are typical of psychopathy. Some of the people will have behavioral patterns ranging from aggression to violence to compete with the individuals that are considered luckier in the competitive society.
Risks associated with psychopaths
Raine " Glenn (2014) note that psychopathic traits increase the risk for one to engage in drug and alcohol abuse as well as criminal behavior. These patterns have been demonstrated in the majority of the psychopaths as they tend to fail to control their temperament. On the other hand, the prognosis of the condition even after treatment has not been positive. Among the personality disorders, treatment of psychopathy using individual or group psychotherapies has not been shown to have lasting effects (Millon et al., 2002). After therapy, individuals still have severe deficits in the long run. The society continues to be concerned with safety matters as psychopaths continue to have high levels of relapses. As such, the standards that can be used in predicting the relapses and performing risk assessment remain low (Felthous " Sass, 2008). Therefore, the safety of the society remains wanting as there are no clear-cut means of assessing those individuals with risk of relapse. Besides, taking care of high-risk relapse individuals remain challenging as risk assessment go hand in hand with the treatment strategies (Felthous " Sass, 2008). It has also been shown that individuals that have served jail term due to their actions may still pose a risk to the society.
The positive side of psychopaths
On the other hand, in the business world, even successful psychopathy has been associated with unethical decision-making (Gregory W. Stevens, Jacqueline K. Deuling, " Achilles A. Armenakis, 2012). The relationship is explained using the moral disengagement theory. From the theory, it is argued that a psychopath can selectively disengage internal moral standards in processes of justifications. These justifications are the basis for such an individual to have unethical decision-making. At the point of making the decisions, the individual does not experience any form of distress by reframing their perceptions (Gregory W. Stevens et al., 2012). In the need to understand how the unethical decision can be made, it would be critical to note that the first stage of disengagement is a changed perception. As such, the stage involves portrayal of the unethical behavior to be less deleterious. In the second stage, the moral disengagement process would be responsible for the displacement and diffusion of responsibility and distortion of the repercussions. Evidently, if the individual is an employee, then he/she fails to own up any mistake in the company. Finally, the individual will be susceptible to cognitive restricting. In this case, the final stage of making an unethical decision is dehumanization and attribution of blame (Gregory W. Stevens et al., 2012). Hence, the third stage does not dispute the unethical behavior. In such case, the victims are made to look like they deserved the treatment. These processes explain the processes that may predispose one to make an unethical decision in situations where they are faced with an ethical dilemma in the workplace. Some of the common unethical actions that can be witnessed in such individuals include abuse of coworkers, padding the expense accounts, or selling the property of the company on the side.
Successful psychopaths can score highly on other career positions including directors or even supervisors. Gregory W. Stevens et al. (2012) indicates that studies have demonstrated a positive relationship between psychopathy and poor management styles and performance. However, there was a strong relationship between psychopathy and good communication skills as well as strategic thinking. Therefore, in as much as psychopathy is linked with behavioral issues, smooth personal style, as well as superficial charisma, could prevent degradation of one’s career (Gregory W. Stevens et al., 2012).
The misconception about psychopaths
In many cases, psychopathy has been incorrectly associated with violence and criminal behavior (Raine " Glenn, 2014). In as much as most forensic settings demonstrate high levels of psychopathic traits in criminal behavior, such individual makes up only 25 percent of the prison population (Raine " Glenn, 2014). Noteworthy, individuals with psychopathic traits can also live a successful life. As such, the individuals can strive and thrive in other careers in areas where the traits can be advantageous. Therefore, even though these individuals may show patterns of manipulation, immoral and antisocial acts, and lying, they may not be involved in criminal activities. Therefore, those that are found with criminal activities qualify to be called the unsuccessful psychopaths (Raine " Glenn, 2014). On the other hand, those that do not have an encounter with the law should be termed the successful psychopaths. The same arguments have been made by (Gregory W. Stevens et al., 2012) by indicating that successful psychopaths exist in the society, and they continue to attract increasing empirical attention un the society.
Although the misconception can be ruled out, Clive R. Boddy (2014) argues that corporate psychopaths can stimulate counterproductive work behavior in the workplace. The behavior could be manifested through bullying of employees. Essentially, the corporate psychopaths have a significant influence on the conflict and bullying as well as employee affective well-being. Fundamentally, the toxic and unethical leadership inculcated in the corporate psychopaths could have negative implications on the attitude and behavior of the subordinates. These could then be noticed in the counterproductive work behavior. From the social learning theory, a subordinate can copy negative behavior from the unethical managers (Clive R. Boddy, 2014). The theory also posits that employees respond negatively to any form of mistreatment. Therefore, in as much as there are misconceptions about psychopathy, corporate psychopathy has deleterious consequences on the employee performance is huge.
Furthermore, psychopathy is associated with an antisocial personality disorder (APD). For APD, the individual depicts persistent antisocial behavior including aggression, frequent deception, and heightened levels of violations of the law. Psychopathy meets the APD features especially in reference to the Lifestyle-Antisocial (factor 2) patterns. However, psychopathy is different due to the presence of the factor 1 features. As such, 75 percent of people in the prisons would be diagnosed with APD (Raine " Glenn, 2014). Besides, the aggression demonstrated by psychopathic individuals tend to be instrumental. Such aggression is planned and unprovoked with the aim of achieving a goal. On the other hand, the aggression in people with schizophrenia or APD is reactive in nature.
References
Clive R. Boddy. (2014). Corporate Psychopaths, Conflict, Employee Affective Well-Being and Counterproductive Work Behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, (1), 107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1688-0
Cooke, D. J., Forth, A. E., " Hare, R. D. (2012). Psychopathy: Theory, Research and Implications for Society. Springer Science " Business Media.
Felthous, A., " Sass, H. (2008). The International Handbook on Psychopathic Disorders and the Law, Volume II: Laws and Policies. John Wiley " Sons.
Gregory W. Stevens, Jacqueline K. Deuling, " Achilles A. Armenakis. (2012). Successful Psychopaths: Are They Unethical Decision-Makers and Why? Journal of Business Ethics, (2), 139. Retrieved from http://165.193.178.96/login?url=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedsjsr%26AN%3dedsjsr.41413250%26site%3deds-live
Hare, R. D. (2011). Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us. Guilford Press.
Kiehl, K. A., " Sinnott-Armstrong, W. P. (2013). Handbook on Psychopathy and Law. OUP USA.
Millon, T., Simonsen, E., Birket-Smith, M., " Davis, R. D. (2002). Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal, and Violent Behavior. Guilford Press.
Raine, A., " Glenn, A. L. (2014). Psychopathy: An Introduction to Biological Findings and Their Implications. NYU Press.
