Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work (17 page)

S N A K E S I N S U I T S

of their popularity, a simple misunderstanding, or the failure to know them well enough.

Among the supporters, we also often found in our research a small group of high-level individuals with only limited experience with their psychopathic subordinate, but who accepted the persona presented to them. Despite the limited exposure, each interaction had been so well orchestrated and left such positive impressions that these higher-level supporters began to advocate for the subordinate.

Believing him or her to be loyal, competent, and extremely successful, they began to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative.

In fact, some would use their positions of power to defend the subordinate’s reputation from the criticisms of his or her peers or other executives.

This phenomenon was puzzling at first. Why would seemingly astute businesspeople take such a strong position in favor of a lower-level employee when they admittedly had only occasional interaction with him or her? We believe that the fictional “ideal employee and future leader” persona was so convincing that many members of the management team were readily charmed. Something out of the ordinary was going on here. For reasons only later to be uncovered, a group of high-level individuals began to act as “patrons” of the psychopaths. Patrons are influential executives who take talented employees “under their wing” and help them progress through the organization. Once this patronage is established, it is difficult to overcome. With a patron on their side, psychopaths could do almost no wrong. Powerful organizational patrons (unwittingly) protect and defend psychopaths from the criticism of others. These individuals would eventually provide a strong voice in support of the psychopaths’ career advancement.

Guided by their assessment of the personality traits and potential utility of coworkers, psychopaths establish networks of personal and, when possible, intimate relationships, all supporting the fictional persona of the ideal coworker and future leader. During this assessment phase, the pieces are being placed on the playing
Pawns, Patrons, and Patsies

127

board, and the pawns (those the psychopath will manipulate) and the patrons (those who will unwittingly protect the psychopath) are identified. This is the time for gathering information and for initial positioning. The personal relationships established during this phase provide the psychopath with tools that will prove useful in later phases.

It should be noted that many talented and well-motivated employees attempt to make positive impressions on those around them.

Only a small proportion deceive and manipulate to such an extent that the integrity of the organization is in danger of being compromised. At this point in the process, however, it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to tell the difference between normal impression management and predatory deception.

Although we have labeled this a distinct phase, assessment is in fact an ongoing process, occurring whenever psychopaths meet someone new. Many modern organizations experience continual change among staff members, and new relationship networks and business issues emerge. This provides psychopaths with the continual opportunity to assess the pawn-patron potential of new players as they join the company or take on new roles. This constant change (often frustrating to the rest of us) adds interest, challenge, and new opportunities for psychopaths to perpetrate their fiction—a motivating factor not unlike that experienced by con men and women when dealing with people in open society.

LOW-UTILITY OBSERVERS

Not everyone that psychopaths meet interests them. There are plenty of coworkers and managers who have little to offer in the way of influence, assets, or potential support. Being ignored, these individuals are in a good position to see what is actually going on. They may realize that the psychopath is not who he or she pretends to be, and may even witness the manipulation of others. This, however, takes time and extensive interaction; and most people mind their own
128

S N A K E S I N S U I T S

business, not taking careful note of others’ revealing interactions—

assuming they even know what to look for.

Manipulating Management and Coworkers
The manipulation stage forms the great bulk of the daily organizational existence of psychopaths. During this phase, they manipulate others toward their own end. The goal of their game is to set up a scam within the organization’s structure that can fulfill their need for excitement, advancement, and power—all without concern about harmful outcomes to others. Typically, thrill seeking and game playing are satisfied by the fast-paced manipulation of coworkers, executives, vendors, or customers. Winning almost always involves financial and power rewards, such as a steady paycheck for work rarely completed, and promotions into increasing levels of authority.

It can also include derailing the careers of coworkers up to and including their unjust termination.

For example, Dan, a corporate con, used Chuck’s informal power in the organization. Chuck was a very likable person with a stellar reputation as a solid citizen in the company; he was often described as a straight arrow and a high-potential individual contributor. His integrity was unassailable and his work performance was above expectations; his decisions about his work (and sometimes that of others) were rarely challenged. Recognizing Chuck’s potential, Dan went to great lengths to build a bond with him. Eventually, this bond grew to the point where Chuck felt a special kinship toward Dan; what Chuck lacked in extroversion and leadership potential, he saw in Dan. Dan was the person he wished he could be. In fact, several coworkers referred to Chuck as Dan’s shadow because they always seemed to hang out together. Others referred to him as Dan’s “soul mate.” Chuck’s association with Dan and his descriptions of him to his coworkers lent a lot of credence to Dan’s persona as the competent, loyal, talented employee, much like Chuck.

Pawns, Patrons, and Patsies

129

On occasion, Chuck would explain away Dan’s temper as an expression of his artistic, creative bent. What others saw as rudeness and hostility, Chuck saw as Dan’s standing up for what he believed in. In addition to defending him to the others, what made Chuck particularly useful to Dan was the fact that Chuck was an acknowledged expert at his own job (as well as the jobs of many others). As it turned out, Chuck was the key to Dan’s success, working extra hours to help his “friend” do his job. No one realized that he was actually doing Dan’s work for him while Dan was out politicking and manipulating others.

When trying to understand and explain their successful manipulation in organizations, we first thought that the psychopaths were merely ingratiating themselves with those at the top of the organization and with the most power, while abusing peers and subordinates at the lower levels. This is not an unusual tactic in organizations.

However, the more we learned about these individuals, the less our observations could be explained by simple ingratiation techniques—

most executives and coworkers were too smart to fall for this approach for very long. The relationships between our subjects and their supporters turned out to be more complex than this.

Two factors were important: the extensive use of clever impression management techniques, and the use of secrecy. Using a variety of influence tactics, the psychopaths manipulated their network of one-on-one personal bonds to gather information they could use to advance their own careers, derail the careers of rivals, or enlist technical support when the company made demands on them (to actually do their jobs). Specifically, their game plans involved manipulating communication networks to enhance their own reputation, to disparage others, and to create conflicts and rivalries among organization members, thereby keeping them from sharing information that might uncover the deceit. They also spread disinformation in the interest of protecting their scam and furthering their own careers. Being exceedingly clever and secretive, they were able to cloak their association with the disinformation, leading others to
130

S N A K E S I N S U I T S

believe that they were innocent of manipulation. Secrecy is a key to a corporate con’s success.

Impression Management, Deception, and Lies
Impression management, deception, and lying are integral and necessary parts of social interactions. In some occupations—poker, politics, advertising, and so forth—they are key job requirements.

Nonetheless, most poker players, politicians, advertisers, and other “situational” deceivers would find it more difficult to convince their mothers or wives of their sincerity in matters unrelated to their jobs. That is, their prowess at lying is specific to their “work.”

In contrast, the deceptions of psychopaths are generalized and pervasive, part of a natural stratagem that ranges from cool indifference to the truth to malevolent intent to deceive and control.

Secrecy also helped corporate cons to reinforce the bonds they built with others. Telling someone a secret, even if you know that he or she will share it with others, implies a level of trust that cannot help but raise expectations of friendship and respect. Chuck admired Dan and wanted to emulate his outgoing, assertive nature, but would never want others to know this. Being accepted as his friend allowed him intimate access to Dan’s behaviors and (apparently private) thoughts, and might, he reasoned, help some of these traits to rub off on him. Secretly helping Dan complete assignments was a small price to pay and not any different from sharing his homework with high school and fraternity brothers years before. He also knew that Dan would never reveal his inner desires and would take care of him down the road, especially when Dan was selected to attend management seminars given by the company—a luxury Chuck could not experience. They were a natural fit.

Pawns, Patrons, and Patsies

131

MASTER PSYCHOLOGISTS?

Many psychopaths appear to be masters at understanding human psychology and at finding and exploiting the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of others. It is unclear whether this reflects an inherent talent or whether they simply work harder than the rest of us at searching for buttons to press. In any case, their strongest challenges no doubt are individuals with strong personality traits such as narcissism, assertiveness, and dominance. These individuals are particularly important to psychopaths because they also tend to be in the higher levels of power. Although they may share some of the psychopath’s traits (that is, strong ego, sense of entitlement), they lack the psychopath’s cold-blooded efficiency.

Unfortunately, no group is more surprised to learn that they have been psychologically manipulated than those who believe they are smarter and stronger than others, no matter how true this may be. Narcissistic managers, in particular, tend to rise to management positions in organizations in disproportionately large numbers. Being particularly self-absorbed, they are known to use (and abuse) their subordinates and play up to their superiors to assure their own personal career success. (See pages 40–41 for similarities and differences between narcissists and psychopaths.) We have spoken with a number of narcissistic managers who also felt victimized by corporate cons: much to their own surprise—and not easy for them to admit—

they were outclassed and outgunned. Additionally, and this really plays into the hands of the corporate con, individuals with strong personalities, such as narcissism, are far less likely than most to seek assistance, guidance, or even personal feedback until it is too late, making them attractive long-term targets.

As noted above, psychopaths identify and use informal leaders to support their quest for status and power. Individuals with informal power exist in every organization and play a major role in keeping the organization’s day-to-day operations afloat. Consider Mary, a staff assistant for a major company. She was a delightful person, had a wealth of information about the organization, and as we learned
132

S N A K E S I N S U I T S

from several others, was a major conduit of the office grapevine. Her cubicle was a regular stop for Doug on his daily rounds of the company. A simple “Hi, Mary! How was your weekend?” from Doug, followed by a leisurely discussion of life’s events, would often lead to his sharing “secret” information with Mary about critical organizational issues, key managers, and potential changes. Enthralled with this amount of trust and attention from someone higher up, Mary in turn kept Doug informed of the behind-the-scenes information she had obtained from others.

Understanding that in every organizational rumor there is a ker-nel of truth, Doug was adept at singling out potentially useful information and storing it in his memory for future use. Given the right opportunity, Doug would “trade up” these bits of information by approaching key individuals and hinting that he was aware of key organizational issues and decisions. Believing that Doug was on the inside track, they felt comfortable about revealing additional pieces of information, which Doug mentally cataloged for future use.

Meanwhile, Mary spread positive, glowing stories about Doug throughout the organization, testifying to his integrity, sincerity, and generosity. “He’s going places, I’ve heard, and I know it’s true,” she volunteered to anyone who would listen. She would then tell tales of how Doug was being given important projects to work on, how he helped others with their jobs without taking any credit for himself, how some senior executives confided in him because they trusted him, and how he was on the inside track of what was going to happen in the future. These and other messages were relayed throughout the organization long before Doug’s name made it to the corporate succession plan. Who was the original source of the stories? Doug, of course.

Besides being manipulated into covering for psychopaths, some coworkers actually carry their workload in exchange for things that are not readily apparent to observers at the time. For example, all Chuck needed was a little attention and praise for his work, a need Dan managed to fulfill quite effectively. Mary needed a good source of reliable information, and Doug knew how to play her like a fiddle.