Fearless dominance and the U.S. presidency: Implications of psychopathic personality traits for successful and unsuccessful political leadership.

Abstract

Although psychopathic personality (psychopathy) is marked largely by maladaptive traits (e.g., poor impulse control, lack of guilt), some authors have conjectured that some features of this condition (e.g., fearlessness, interpersonal dominance) are adaptive in certain occupations, including leadership positions. We tested this hypothesis in the 42 U.S. presidents up to and including George W. Bush using (a) psychopathy trait estimates derived from personality data completed by historical experts on each president, (b) independent historical surveys of presidential leadership, and (c) largely or entirely objective indicators of presidential performance. Fearless Dominance, which reflects the boldness associated with psychopathy, was associated with better rated presidential performance, leadership, persuasiveness, crisis management, Congressional relations, and allied variables; it was also associated with several largely or entirely objective indicators of presidential performance, such as initiating new projects and being viewed as a world figure. Most of these associations survived statistical control for covariates, including intellectual brilliance, five factor model personality traits, and need for power. In contrast, Impulsive Antisociality and related traits of psychopathy were generally unassociated with rated presidential performance, although they were linked to some largely or entirely objective indicators of negative job performance, including Congressional impeachment resolutions, tolerating unethical behavior in subordinates, and negative character. These findings indicate that the boldness associated with psychopathy is an important but heretofore neglected predictor of presidential performance, and suggest that certain features of psychopathy are tied to successful interpersonal behavior.

Critical evaluation of psychopathy measurement (PCL-R and SRP-III/SF) and recommendations for future research

“…The prevalence of psychopathic traits was also higher in a corporate sample than that found in community samples (Babiak, Neumann, & Hare, 2010). In another study, it was demonstrated that increased psychopathy scores among U.S. presidents were associated with a better-rated presidential performance (Lilienfeld et al, 2012 Hare and Neumann's (2006) assertion that the omission of criminal tendencies from the PCL-R is inconsistent with its structural properties, a growing body of evidence suggests that such tendencies should not be regarded as central to the conceptualization of the construct of psychopathy.…”

“…Importantly, it has been stipulated that increased psychopathic traits, such as dominance and manipulativeness, can be found among individuals representing noncriminal settings where impersonal style and cold calculation are valued (e.g., business, law enforcement, and politics) (Hall & Benning, 2007;Lilienfeld et al, 2012), indicating that criminal/antisocial behavior does not constitute an essential part of the construct of psychopathy. Consequently, because the SRP-III and SRP-SF were generated on the basis of the PCL-R and hence contain items referring to criminal/antisocial conduct, their suitability for use with non-forensic populations appears limited.…”

Introduction and validation of Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale (PPTS) in a large prison sample

“…Interestingly, heightened psychopathy scores in U.S. presidents were correlated with a better-rated presidential performance (Lilienfeld et al, 2012). As such, if criminal/antisocial tendencies are just one possible manifestation of psychopathy, other non-criminal/antisocial behaviours in which psychopaths may partake should also be accounted for.…”

Successful Psychopaths: A Contemporary Phenomenon

“…Other commentators surprisingly suggest that psychopathy may be beneicial to organizations: these papers and articles should questioned for this viewpoint [10,25,43,44] diverging from the many studies, which we will examine, that verify the importance of preventing these phenomena.…”

“…Research has also suggested that business has promoted psychopathic managers because of their ruthless willingness to "get the job done," and as they atain senior positions, executive psychopaths have become architects of ruthlessness as they create a "culture of extremes" [10] so corporate psychopathy lourishes perhaps as the most signiicant threat to ethical corporate behavior. In this contemporary social context, psychopathic personality aspects, like the appearance of conidence, calm, strength, and other psychopathic dispositions, such as the disinclination to express emotions (except to manipulate), are often mistaken for "leadership qualities" [23], also because it is believed that the ability to remain calm and unemotional in pressured circumstances may be factors of success in business [10,24,25]. Their characteristics of being ultra-rational inancially-oriented managers, with no emotional concern for or empathy with other employees [26], marks them appear as well-siting in capitalistic context [27] that is proit oriented [10].…”