Private companies, especially from the perspective of supporters of left-wing socio-economic views, are often considered socially irresponsible, working solely for their own material gain, while being completely unconcerned about the impact of their activities on society and the environment in which they exist. It cannot be denied that such a statement is to some extent true, as it is not difficult to imagine how a businessman might dump toxic waste into a river or squeeze the last bit of strength out of their employees without providing fair compensation for their labor. However, this is not always the case, and the problem of “bad” companies deserves a closer look.
A study on the topic of corporate psychopathy can help us with this. In it, 346 Australian employees took part in a survey in which they rated their supervisors (managers) for psychopathy using the PM-MRV test; they were able to rate both current and previous supervisors, resulting in a total of 567 individuals being evaluated. Based on the survey results, the managers were divided into normal, dysfunctional (partially psychopathic), and psychopathic. The test itself includes standard items for assessing primary psychopathy, such as superficial charm, deceitfulness, manipulativeness, a grandiose opinion of oneself, a lack of remorse regarding causing harm to employees, cold-bloodedness, a lack of empathy, and an unwillingness to take responsibility (shifting the blame for one’s own mistakes onto others). In addition to the psychopathy of the managers, the study assessed whether the activities of the companies with these managers were socially and environmentally responsible, beneficial to the local community, and loyal to the employees.
Of the 567 managers, 292 were rated as normal, 132 as dysfunctional, and 143 as psychopathic. Such a high proportion of psychopathic individuals among managers (as much as 25%), which significantly exceeds the general population (only 1%), should not be surprising, as such positions, which grant a person power over others, strongly attract psychopaths and give them the opportunity to fully unfold their cruel abilities. Now we should pay attention to how companies with these different types of managers conduct their activities.
In the case of normal managers, the vast majority of respondents (89.3%) rated the company’s activities as socially and environmentally responsible. However, this figure drops to 66% in the presence of dysfunctional managers and to 52.5% in the case of psychopathic managers. Additionally, 85.8% of respondents rated the company’s activities as beneficial to the local community if normal managers were employed. For companies with dysfunctional managers, this figure drops to 75%, and in the case of psychopathic managers, it falls to 55.1%. Furthermore, the majority of respondents (79.6%) agreed that the company behaves loyally toward employees in the presence of normal managers, but this figure drops as low as 23.7% in the presence of psychopathic managers. This confirms that corporate psychopaths do not care at all about those who work with them or under them. It is also worth noting that in the case of normal managers, 82% of respondents felt recognition for a job well done, whereas only 24.8% of respondents stated this in the presence of psychopathic managers.
One can see how strongly parameters such as social and environmental responsibility, providing benefit to the local community, and loyalty to employees on the part of the company depend on the psychopathy of its managers. Moreover, the study we are considering assessed primary psychopathy specifically, and its manifestation, as is known, is strongly linked to a dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism, due to which an individual ceases to experience internal resistance and repulsion toward causing harm to other people. And the problem of “bad” companies is unlikely to be solved as long as individuals with such a pathology hold their leadership positions. It undoubtedly requires therapy and eradication from society.
