Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work (18 page)

Pawns, Patrons, and Patsies

133

DETRACTORS

t h e e x t r a s

We did find coworkers, peers, and executives who saw through some of the manipulation and deceit. One group, the extras—those who were not actively being manipulated—worked with or near the psychopaths and noticed inconsistencies, lies, and distortions of the truth. They were able, on some level, to see behind the mask; they were not taken in by the psychopathic fiction. Unfortunately, few brought their concerns to the “victims” or to management. Reasons for this silence most often included “I’m minding my own business”;

“No one would listen to me”; and “It’s not my place to intervene.” In rare cases, some expressed an “If they’re dumb enough to fall for this, they deserve what they get” attitude. Others stated that the individual was far too influential for them to cross; these observers preferred to stay out of the line of fire.

During confidential research interviews, we heard stories that helped us understand the psychopathic maneuvers that took place.

Members of the observer group volunteered numerous references to deceitful behaviors (under promise of confidentiality): “He’s a liar and a manipulator. It’s amazing he’s so successful, but then, maybe not, considering how business is these days” was the conclusion of some peers. Psychopathic workers very often were identified as the source of departmental conflicts, in many cases, purposely setting people up in conflict with each other. “She tells some people one story, and then a totally different story to others. Sometimes she’ll tell one person that ‘so-and-so said this about you’ and then do the same thing with the other,” said one exasperated peer. “It’s so high school.”

As we suspected, many in this group initially liked their manipulative coworkers, but learned to distrust them over time. “He’s rude, selfish, unreliable, and irresponsible,” said one coworker, “but there was a time, when he first started, that I liked him a lot.” “I knew her stories were exaggerations,” offered another coworker, “in fact, many
134

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

times outright false, but I never wanted—I think none of us wanted—to call her on her lies. For a time she was entertaining. I can’t laugh at her antics now; at best I think she’s a sad case.” After a pause, this coworker continued, “but that is giving her a lot more credit than she deserves—she’s a snake.”

t h e o r g a n i z at i o n a l p o l i c e Some individuals have policing roles in organizations; jobs designed to maintain order and control. They may work in human resources, security, auditing, and quality control, among other functions. They are necessary to the smooth running of any organization, but they pose a threat to corporate cons, who try to avoid them as long as they can.

Should someone in a policing role suspect that something is amiss, his or her job is to confront the person and/or expose the behavior to higher management. Many of these policing individuals have excellent critical thinking and investigative skills and are charged with a special responsibility, typically fostered by professional and personal ethics and moral values.

Although few in number, and rarely interacting on a daily basis with the psychopath, these staff members were particularly astute when it came to their suspicions. “This guy is no good,” said the auditor who reviewed expense reports. “I don’t trust her; she’s too good to be true,” said the employment supervisor who conducted one of the initial interviews. “Bad vibes,” said the security manager. “I’m going to watch him for a while.”

In corporate settings, people in these functions are sometimes referred to as the organizational police. While many may cringe when referred to by that name, their role, much like their municipal police counterparts, is to protect the organization and its members. We believe that by being on the lookout for deceitful and possibly illegal behavior, such as lying, cheating, bullying, and stealing, these individuals have the ability to uncover psychopathic manipulation early on. Unfortunately, in at least some of the cases we reviewed, the organizational police were unable to effect much improvement. Beyond making known their observations, collecting information on
Pawns, Patrons, and Patsies

135

violations of company policy, and raising issues about “questionable”

interpersonal behavior, some could not influence management decisions regarding the well-established fraudster. Without top management support, organizational police are often unable to uncover and handle the corporate psychopath’s subcriminal behavior.

Corporate Fraud in the Boardroom

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) reported that in 2003, 37 percent of 3,600 companies in 50 countries had suffered from fraudulent acts, with an average company loss of more that $2 million.

The actual average loss likely was much higher because of failures to detect or report frauds, or a tendency to write them off as a commercial loss.
One quarter
of the frauds were committed by
senior managers
and
executives
with a sophisticated understanding of the company’s internal controls and risk management procedures.

In spite of the public outrage at the recent spate of high-profile scandals in the corporate world, things are not getting any better.

In 2004, the percentage of companies in the PWC global survey that experienced fraud rose from 37 to 44 and then to 45 in 2005.

PWC suggests that corporations should be on the watch for the executive who:

• Engages in activities indicative of a lack of integrity

• Is prone to engage in speculative ventures or accept unusually high business risks

• Displays a poor attitude toward compliance with regulatory or legislative obligations

• Is evasive, uncooperative, or abusive of the audit team

• Lacks a
proven
track record
136

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

DISCREPANT VIEWS

The most striking thing about these and other cases was the mixed reactions of the corporate cons’ coworkers. In every case, we found a strong discrepancy in the perceptions between those who viewed their actions in a very positive, favorable light and those who saw them in a negative light. We wondered how a fictional persona could be maintained in an environment that included negative perceptions and doubt. Eventually, it became obvious that the psychopaths were effectively balancing the discrepant views of their coworkers, and relying on consistent charm, occasional intimidation, the basic trusting nature of people, and frequent organizational changes to maintain their fictional personas in the eyes of those who mattered most.

To summarize up to this point, unsuspecting coworkers quickly form impressions of psychopaths based on their personal interactions and the details they learn from others. For most, the initial impression is positive and these individuals either like the person or take a neutral position (but see page 92). One might expect that the impressions of a charming personality would spread throughout the company and take hold of virtually all its members. We found, and indicated above, that two separate and distinct camps evolve with opposing views of the psychopath’s value to the organization. The supporters (labeled pawns and patrons) felt that they were valuable contributors to the success of the organization; they described them as team players and solid corporate citizens. Detractors (labeled extras and organizational police in the psychopathic drama), however, reported all manner of underhanded, deceitful, manipulative behaviors by the same individuals. We know that this was possible because their view of these individuals was not colored by the charming façade. The organizational police who raised the red flag had been trained to look for and uncover deceitful behavior and often did so—but were not always listened to. Finally, the extras, because they lacked any organ-Pawns, Patrons, and Patsies

137

izational influence, posed little threat, and had no perceived value to the psychopaths, were not as carefully finessed.

Certainly, it is not unusual for individuals to be liked by some and disliked by others. This is as true at work as it is at home or school. But in an organization, there is usually a majority point of view based on a specific, identifiable organizational issue such as a turf battle, and a minority view based on a personal issue such as envy. Normal political battling rarely surfaces in so clear and intense a form as it does with a psychopath. Clearly, the detractors despised these individuals, and the supporters almost worshipped them. It was as if employees were describing two entirely different people. In a great number of these situations, it seemed that the psychopath could switch from warm and friendly to cold, distant, and almost hostile depending on with whom they were interacting.

Abandonment and Confrontation

Exposure to the other side of the psychopathic personality increases in proportion to the decline in the utility of the pawns. As the psychopath no longer has a need to maintain the façade for these individuals, psychopaths will generally abandon those whose utility is spent. But abandonment does not always lead to realization that one has been used or conned. For example, blindness to this reality might be reflected in the perceptions of an investor who still believes in the good intentions of an exposed scamster, despite having lost his life savings. How might this play out in organizational life?

In organizations, pawns are eventually abandoned, in both the social sense—the psychopath no longer associates with them—and the psychological sense—the friendship generated as part of the psychopathic bond turns cold. But because the psychopath is now working in an organization and cannot run away from the scene of the crime, abandonment becomes more obvious to those affected, as well as to those around them. This dramatic shift from friendly coworker
138

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

to cold, dispassionate stranger is a consistent element of psychopathic behavior, and affects victims in predictable ways—ways that may work to the benefit of the psychopath.

This “dark side” of a previously charming coworker comes as a shock to those used as pawns. When faced with this “new” side of the psychopath, they frequently question their own behavior first, blaming themselves for the changes they are now sensing in the psychopath. “What did I do?” is a common self-doubt. Although these pawns may not yet understand what has happened, they begin to see glimmers of the true psychopathic personality—a realization we are told is “chilling.”

Eventually, pawns conclude that they have been patsies. They feel cheated, defiled, and often incredulous that the person they liked and trusted betrayed that trust. And, we found, it was not always over major things that the truth became known to them. It was sometimes only a small incident that changed their perception enough so that the true nature of the “snake” in their midst became evident. But embarrassment and shame often keep them from coming forward.

Organization members who were willing to discuss with us their interactions with their abusive, manipulating coworkers reported feeling abandoned when the latter moved their attention to others.

They also reported experiencing the most common victim response: silence due to shame at being conned. Like so many other victims, they wanted to keep their shame secret. This response, of course, plays into the hands of the psychopath who is protected by the tendency toward silence and secrecy.

Interestingly, while most victims reported feeling ashamed at being conned, and therefore reluctant to speak about their experiences, a few also felt disappointment when the psychopath in their company moved his or her attentions to others in the organization. It was almost as if they had lost something they valued—a close friend—

when the psychopath stopped using them.

Pawns, Patrons, and Patsies

139

CONFRONTATION

In organizational settings, the manipulation skills of psychopaths are challenged by the constant need to manage the growing discrepancy in the views of them by a large number of fellow employees. We believe that a breakdown begins to occur when the psychopath’s web of deceit and manipulation becomes unwieldy and too many people have had glimpses of their dark side. Eventually, someone tries to do something about it. A former pawn might challenge or confront the individual, and perhaps even try to bring the situation to the attention of higher-ups. Unfortunately, by this time the psychopath is well positioned through the influence networks already established with others in the power hierarchy. The tables are turned because the credibility of the complaining employee has already been “managed”

and undermined. The employee wonders what has happened. As potential rivals and detractors are neutralized, the psychopath is free to continue operations unchallenged.

This has an intimidating effect on bystanders in two ways. Those working with the employee who was defeated see the demoralizing effects up close and conclude it is not worth fighting the psychopath.

Others may assume that the psychopath has been selected for future leadership roles and can do no wrong, and is therefore immune to attack. Unfortunately, they have come to believe that this person is not to be challenged and is protected by upper management. Some might conclude that the management team is not as astute as once thought, and rather than signal to upper management that there is a deceitful person on board, they adopt a wait-and-see attitude. The increase in cautious inaction among coworkers is another subtle but powerful effect that psychopathic behavior has on the organization. By creating a niche safe from the attacks of rivals, the psychopath can maintain his or her operations for a lengthy amount of time.

It now seemed clear that the corporate psychopaths we studied started out being liked by all who met them because they were able
140

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