Scan barcode
blackoxford's review
2.0
Inmates in Charge of the Asylum
Snakes in Suits describes what most of us already know about corporate organisations, namely that there are an awful lot of nasty people who can make life miserable. Many of these are clinically psychopathic. But knowing how to identify the psychopaths and documenting how many there are in managerial positions just isn’t possible. Nor would it make much difference if we could. What we have at the moment is merely a (unstable) description of a condition and its putative aetiology:
The authors provide a range of suggestions for corporate recruiting, mainly to the HR department, which they believe will help spot psychopaths before they are hired. But these suggestions are the result of anecdotal case studies and professional intuition alone and don’t amount to much in the corporate milieu. Despite the authors’ claims that progress has been since the first suggestion of the issue in 1941 (by Cleckley in The Mask of Sanity), no practical results have been forthcoming.
The disease of corporate psychopathy is largely invisible except to the people who experience it directly. And it is likely to remain so for several reasons. In the first instance the so-called diagnostic criteria used to identify carriers are vague and unstable. As far as I am aware, for example, the three main diagnostic tests (PCL:R, PCL:SV, and PCL:YV) have not even been tested against each other, much less against non-criminal or other non-institutionalised populations. In any case, psychopaths are notoriously skilled at confounding both lie detectors and self-reporting psychiatric tests.
Further, the ‘factors’ in each test are frequently overdetermined and could point to a number of conditions in the so-called Dark Triad of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism among many other disorders. So diagnosis is a linguistic game of ‘traits’. Consequently it’s really not possible to estimate the incidence of psychopathy accurately. For example:
From a purely epistemological viewpoint the classification of mental disorders therefore becomes meaningless except to clinicians, and often not even to them. As a corporate employee, how would I distinguish empathy in a candidate? In any case, do I really care that the boss who is bullying the entire department is psychotic or merely anti-social?
Moreover spotting these traits outside of intensive psychiatric settings is simply impossible. Psychopaths are master impersonators who can outwit even experienced professionals much less typical HR managers during a relatively brief interview. We have an apparently built-in presumption that others are like ourselves. Psychopaths, however, are an entirely different species and they exploit that presumption mercilessly.
And of course the self-referential problem of psychopathy in corporate organisations is obvious as well as inherently insurmountable. If the hypothesis that a substantial number of corporate executives are psychopathic, particularly at senior levels, is true, then who is likely to commission and interpret relevant research in the area? The psychopaths naturally.
And even if useful criteria were developed from research, just imagine the potential legal liability. Given the nature of the disease itself - hidden, manipulative, clever, remorseless - proving a diagnosis in court for the rejection of a candidate or the termination of an executive is a punt no intelligent CEO would take (presuming he or she wasn’t psychopathic!). According to some, psychopathic traits are just the ticket for improving corporate performance. What judge would dare step into the quagmire of such an arbitrary assessment of qualifications?
So I suppose we are all stuck with the casual torture of corporate existence. It’s just another one of life’s inadequacies to deal with. Psychopaths, like the poor, are always with us.
Snakes in Suits describes what most of us already know about corporate organisations, namely that there are an awful lot of nasty people who can make life miserable. Many of these are clinically psychopathic. But knowing how to identify the psychopaths and documenting how many there are in managerial positions just isn’t possible. Nor would it make much difference if we could. What we have at the moment is merely a (unstable) description of a condition and its putative aetiology:
“Psychopathy is not solely a product of social and environmental forces. Genetic factors play an important role in the formation of the personality traits and temperament considered essential to the disorder. However, its lifelong expression is the result of complex interactions between biological/temperamental predispositions and social forces.
The authors provide a range of suggestions for corporate recruiting, mainly to the HR department, which they believe will help spot psychopaths before they are hired. But these suggestions are the result of anecdotal case studies and professional intuition alone and don’t amount to much in the corporate milieu. Despite the authors’ claims that progress has been since the first suggestion of the issue in 1941 (by Cleckley in The Mask of Sanity), no practical results have been forthcoming.
The disease of corporate psychopathy is largely invisible except to the people who experience it directly. And it is likely to remain so for several reasons. In the first instance the so-called diagnostic criteria used to identify carriers are vague and unstable. As far as I am aware, for example, the three main diagnostic tests (PCL:R, PCL:SV, and PCL:YV) have not even been tested against each other, much less against non-criminal or other non-institutionalised populations. In any case, psychopaths are notoriously skilled at confounding both lie detectors and self-reporting psychiatric tests.
Further, the ‘factors’ in each test are frequently overdetermined and could point to a number of conditions in the so-called Dark Triad of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism among many other disorders. So diagnosis is a linguistic game of ‘traits’. Consequently it’s really not possible to estimate the incidence of psychopathy accurately. For example:
“The difference between psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder is that the former includes personality traits such as lack of empathy, grandiosity, and shallow emotions that are not necessary for a diagnosis of ASPD.”
From a purely epistemological viewpoint the classification of mental disorders therefore becomes meaningless except to clinicians, and often not even to them. As a corporate employee, how would I distinguish empathy in a candidate? In any case, do I really care that the boss who is bullying the entire department is psychotic or merely anti-social?
Moreover spotting these traits outside of intensive psychiatric settings is simply impossible. Psychopaths are master impersonators who can outwit even experienced professionals much less typical HR managers during a relatively brief interview. We have an apparently built-in presumption that others are like ourselves. Psychopaths, however, are an entirely different species and they exploit that presumption mercilessly.
And of course the self-referential problem of psychopathy in corporate organisations is obvious as well as inherently insurmountable. If the hypothesis that a substantial number of corporate executives are psychopathic, particularly at senior levels, is true, then who is likely to commission and interpret relevant research in the area? The psychopaths naturally.
And even if useful criteria were developed from research, just imagine the potential legal liability. Given the nature of the disease itself - hidden, manipulative, clever, remorseless - proving a diagnosis in court for the rejection of a candidate or the termination of an executive is a punt no intelligent CEO would take (presuming he or she wasn’t psychopathic!). According to some, psychopathic traits are just the ticket for improving corporate performance. What judge would dare step into the quagmire of such an arbitrary assessment of qualifications?
So I suppose we are all stuck with the casual torture of corporate existence. It’s just another one of life’s inadequacies to deal with. Psychopaths, like the poor, are always with us.
lunaseassecondaccount's review against another edition
3.0
Upfront, I skimmed the last fifty/sixty pages as I've read enough self help books and books about narcissists that I didn't feel what was on offer would be relevant to me.
I enjoyed the beginning two thirds or so of the book. It presented a rather interesting dynamic, about what might cause someone to have, say, psychopathic traits but not wind up in a criminal situation. Although Babiak and Hare use the word 'psychopath' in this manner, I'm a little hesitant to, as the word bastard is so much easier.
Although the short stories presented at the start of the chapters do have a flavour of a Lifetime movie to them, I liked them. They were a little cheesy, sure, but they linked the chapters together and provided an interesting angle.
The writing is easy to understand. A little clinical in parts, sure, and I didn't particularly care for the scientific (not necessarily psychological) analysis. Graphs and the like. And the last few sections, as I stated previously, are presented as a more self help bracket.
I enjoyed the beginning two thirds or so of the book. It presented a rather interesting dynamic, about what might cause someone to have, say, psychopathic traits but not wind up in a criminal situation. Although Babiak and Hare use the word 'psychopath' in this manner, I'm a little hesitant to, as the word bastard is so much easier.
Although the short stories presented at the start of the chapters do have a flavour of a Lifetime movie to them, I liked them. They were a little cheesy, sure, but they linked the chapters together and provided an interesting angle.
The writing is easy to understand. A little clinical in parts, sure, and I didn't particularly care for the scientific (not necessarily psychological) analysis. Graphs and the like. And the last few sections, as I stated previously, are presented as a more self help bracket.
frawst_disasta_reads's review
4.0
This book is a look at psychopaths and how they differ from sociopaths, or just plain narcissists. It's a good read, with a story thrown into the mix. But there are some good tips and interesting sociological looks at people. Parts of it were dry, but overall well written and made sense.
the1germ's review
3.0
This one was a bit repetitive and contradictory. It presented a lot of information useful for identifying a psychopath in the workplace and how to deal with them, but continually followed up with, "You're not qualified to identify a psycopath and you probably shouldn't deal with them."
Welp, I'm going to just totally ignore that and throw out the words Erin Stein. Ahem.
It's primarily useful from a managerial standpoint, detailing methods for spotting psychopathic behaviors in interviews and preventing them from entering the company in the first place. How to properly get rid of them is the same way you safely let go of any other problem employee.
For the less in charge sort of folks, it's a bit more grim. You mustn't prove useful to the psychopath, and you mustn't pose a threat. Your best chance is to escape their notice entirely. And if you've fallen under their radar, all you can do is either forward your boss this book or find another job lol. Either way, they're probably going to annihilate you.
[b:The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry|12391521|The Psychopath Test A Journey Through the Madness Industry|Jon Ronson|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1364166270s/12391521.jpg|14262366] presented the same information, and was overall a more enjoyable read.
Welp, I'm going to just totally ignore that and throw out the words Erin Stein. Ahem.
It's primarily useful from a managerial standpoint, detailing methods for spotting psychopathic behaviors in interviews and preventing them from entering the company in the first place. How to properly get rid of them is the same way you safely let go of any other problem employee.
For the less in charge sort of folks, it's a bit more grim. You mustn't prove useful to the psychopath, and you mustn't pose a threat. Your best chance is to escape their notice entirely. And if you've fallen under their radar, all you can do is either forward your boss this book or find another job lol. Either way, they're probably going to annihilate you.
[b:The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry|12391521|The Psychopath Test A Journey Through the Madness Industry|Jon Ronson|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1364166270s/12391521.jpg|14262366] presented the same information, and was overall a more enjoyable read.
angelfireeast24's review
dark
informative
reflective
tense
medium-paced
4.75
Content Warnings
Graphic: Domestic abuse, Bullying, and Toxic relationship
Minor: Sexual harassment
seedwa's review
I didn’t mind it but it got repetitive after a while and didn’t feel overly useful barr some moments where it explained how organisational structure and culture can be taken advantage of. After a while it starts to feel like a pointless endeavour to reduce people down to a label and behaviour patterns while simultaneously pushing for people not to use the information on the basis that it’s impossible for a lay person to make a judgement about whether someone is psychopath. Seems especially pointless considering psychopath isn’t really an accepted idea anymore.