Charisma, coldness, risk – does there is anything that connects leaders with psychopaths? (part2)
Zarządzanie
11 gru
What is the key to distinguish?
So how to distinguish Elizabeth Holmes from Satya Nadella – both she and he created a vision in which their companies' products were to help society and solve health problems. Both wanted their employees to feel proud and involved in what their company does. One of them turned out to be a fraudster and a swindler, and the other a charismatic leader who changed the company for the better. How to distinguish Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling from Elon Musk? All three questioned reality and common models, looked for non-standard solutions, encouraged others and thought "out-of-box" themselves, with Enron having a spectacular flop, affecting the economic situation of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people, while SpaceX saves money, raw materials and enables technological and scientific progress. How to distinguish Martin Winterkorn from Jeff Bezos – both made decisions in the face of a lack of complete information and a high level of uncertainty, with one of them leading to an image scandal and huge financial losses, while the other, based on 2/3 of the available information, developed a global business. How to finally distinguish Sheryl Sandberg from the management of NASA – after all, both she and the Agency wanted to complete the tasks on time. But Sandberg's activities developed Facebook and NASA's activities caused the death of 7 people.
The trolley dilemma
The trolley problem is a classic thought experiment used to test our moral intuition. The original version was proposed by the British philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967: A stray railway carriage rushes towards five people tied to the tracks. You are standing next to a switch, which you can move to direct the car to the side track. Unfortunately, there is one person on this side track.
What will you do? Will you flip the switch to save five people at the cost of one, or will you do nothing by letting the minecart kill five people?
Think for a moment, do you already know what to choose?
In 2015, scientists from MIT conducted an online project - Moral Machine, in which tens of thousands of people from over 40 countries participated. Most people chose to save more people – that is, to switch the switch. [xvi]In many other studies around the world, most participants choose to move the switch and direct the car to the track with one person to save five. This choice, depending on many factors, varies between 70% and 90% and shows that these people base their decision on utilitarianism, i.e. the ethical doctrine that states that the best action is the one that maximizes the good of the public and minimizes suffering
The fat man's dilemma - the development of the trolley dilemma
But what if we modify this thought experiment? So, let's imagine that: A stray wagon rushes towards five people. You are standing on a footbridge over the tracks. A very obese man is standing next to you. The only thing that can stop the carriage is to push the man off the footbridge. His body is large enough to immobilize the minecart, but he will die.
What will you do? Will you push a man off the footbridge to save five people?
In this scenario, most people hesitate or refuse to act, even if the outcome, which is saving five people at the expense of one, is the same. This is because we intuitively feel that pushing a person off the footbridge is a direct, personal act of violence, while switching the switch in the first scenario is a more indirect and impersonal action.
Internal conflict
These two thought experiments show the inner conflict that arises in a person faced with such choices. On the one hand, we feel the need to save five people (utilitarianism), at the same time we know that we must not deliberately harm a human being (deontology). If our action is not direct – we do not push the fat man onto the tracks, but we move the switch, utilitarianism dominates. But when we must personally "get our hands dirty", then deontology stands in opposition to utilitarianism – do not harm your neighbour. The development with the footbridge shows that our morality is not always purely logical. Emotions, empathy and a sense of direct responsibility for the act of violence play a big role.
Am I a psychopath?
Studies on the trolley dilemma involving people with psychopathic traits or clinically diagnosed psychopaths have provided interesting conclusions.
Healthy people, in the crossover scenario, usually choose the utilitarian option and save five people. In the scenario with the footbridge, they feel a lot of internal conflict. Most refuse to push a person off, because it involves direct action and causing harm to the person (fat man). They see this act as a direct violation of the principle "thou shalt not kill", and their decision is the resultant of the conflict between reason (utilitarianism) and emotions (deontology). From a biochemical point of view, however, the fat man's dilemma activates areas of the brain associated with empathy and emotion processing.
On the other hand, people with psychopathic traits in both scenarios - the switch and the footbridge - tend to make purely utilitarian decisions, that is, to save more people. They do not feel a strong internal conflict in the scenario of pushing the fat man off the footbridge. For them, both situations are simply a logical and mathematical problem: one person or five people will die. They are less guided by the emotional aspect of the decision. Magnetic resonance imaging studies have shown that psychopaths do not activate the same areas of the brain as healthy people, associated with empathy and moral anxiety, which normally prevent healthy people from directly acting violently.
What does this mean for the understanding of psychopathy?
Research on the trolley dilemma shows that the key trait that distinguishes psychopaths from healthy people is not the 'bad' morality itself, but the emotional deficit. Psychopaths simply cannot feel what others feel. They have no sense of guilt or regret for their actions, because they make a "logical", utilitarian decision to save more people, For them, harming one person on their own to save five is a consequence of logical analysis, while for healthy people, throwing a fat man off the footbridge is difficult to accept due to the personal, brutal nature of this act. Psychopaths have a reduced level of anxiety – which makes it easier for them to make decisions without fear of consequences. They act utilitarianly, according to logic. This, in turn, allows them to take risky actions without fear of consequences. Therefore, psychopaths may be capable of making ruthless and cold decisions that may seem effective in business or in a crisis but are devoid of human compassion.
Are effective managers psychopaths? Or are psychopaths characterized by high management efficiency?
In biology, there is a concept of evolutionary convergence, describing similarities in the structure, behaviour or physiology of unrelated organisms that have developed because of adaptation to the same environment. An example is the body shape of a dolphin and a shark – although the former is a mammal and the latter a fish, their silhouettes show similarity resulting from living in similar conditions. Another example of convergence is the thorns of the rose and the cactus. However, this superficial similarity can be misleading, because there are different mechanisms at the basis of their evolution.
Similarly, there are similarities between effective managers and people with psychopathic traits. However, these are distinct "types" whose external behaviours may look similar, but their origins are different. Both a psychopath and a charismatic leader can inspire those around them and motivate teams to act; The key difference lies in motivation – a leader is guided by the good of the company and its stakeholders, while a psychopath acts mainly for their own benefit.
Company strategies can be aimed at the success of the company and the well-being of its customers and employees, which in turn translates into favourable working conditions, social benefits or professional development opportunities. Alternatively, the organization's activities may focus on maximizing profits for management or owners at the expense of neglecting the needs of other stakeholder groups or even deliberately misleading customers and investors (Theranos vs Microsoft).
Creativity, unconventionality and questioning the status quo are double-edged swords. They can support development and innovation but also serve manipulation and unethical practices (Enron vs SpaceX). Also, quick decision-making with limited information can lead to different outcomes depending on the intention – they can support the development of the organization or benefit a narrow group at the expense of others (Amazon vs Volkswagen).
Organizations where managers are guided by the principles of dialogue and respect for employees are less likely to experience serious mistakes. On the other hand, where relationships are hierarchical, based on dominance and pressure, fear and susceptibility to mistakes are more likely to appear, which can have serious consequences (Facebook vs NASA).
Summary
In a world of complex decisions, high expectations, and incomplete data, the line between effectiveness and psychopathy can blur. The key lies not so much in what the leader does, but why he does it – and how it affects others. It is motivations, relationships and ethics that determine whether we are dealing with a charismatic leader or a cold manipulator.
Although in some cases the behaviour and actions of both may seem similar, the constant and common element is the durability of the organization. Leaders who are guided by the good of the company, the team, and society more often build lasting organizations. The organizational culture they create often endures many years after the leaders themselves no longer work there. On the other hand, the examples I mentioned at the beginning show that organizations where leaders manipulated and coerced eventually fell apart as soon as the leader was no longer present.
So, the answer to the question "Charisma, coldness, risk – is there anything that connects leaders with psychopaths?" is "no," because what unmistakably distinguishes one from the other is not what they do, but why they do it.
[i] John Carreyrou, "Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup", Alfred A. Knopf, New York 2018
[ii] https://www.forbes.com/profile/elizabeth-holmes/
[iv] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/regulation/etc/synopsis.html
[v] https://www.investopedia.com/updates/enron-scandal-summary/
[vi] https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/volkswagen-clean-air-act-civil-settlement
[vii] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772
[viii] https://sdsmtnovum.org/2022/01/31/roger-boisjoly-and-the-challenger-disaster/
[ix] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRPT-99hrpt1016/pdf/GPO-CRPT-99hrpt1016.pdf
[x] Dweck, Carol S. Mindset. A new psychology of success. Warsaw, 2017
[xi] Kelleher, Kathleen. Hit Refresh: How Microsoft's CEO Satya Nadella is Reimagining the Company and Changing the Culture. Harper Business, 2017.
[xii] https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/nasa-awards-spacex-more-crew-flights-to-space-station/
[xiii] Bezos, J. (2017). Invent and Wander: The Collected Writings of Jeff Bezos, With an Introduction by Walter Isaacson. Harvard Business Review Press
[xiv] Sheryl Sandberg; "Get in the game. Women, Work and the Desire for Leadership"; 2013
[xv] Berne, E. (2021). Good morning... And what next? Psychology of interpersonal relations. Warsaw: Home
[xvi] A. M. Nascimento et al., "The Moral Machine: Is It Moral?" in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Digital Governance and Digital Citizenship (2020): 1–13.