Psychopathy: Myth versus reality and its impact in the workplace
Month: March 2025
Last week our colleague, Marijn Tingen, wrote about the narcissistic personality. This week I would like to address the phenomenon of psychopathy. There is often confusion about these two concepts. This confusion is not surprising because there are certainly similarities between the two. What the narcissistic and psychopathic personalities have in common is egocentricity: being focused on oneself and on one's own need satisfaction. What makes the narcissistic personality unique is its grandiosity. These individuals have a strong need for admiration. They go to great lengths to be the centre of attention and they become upset and angry, quickly, when they are hurt or rejected.
In the psychopath, the insensitivity, the coldness, is in the foreground, and to a much lesser extent the need for admiration. The disorder in the psychopath lies in the fact that there is an inability to connect socially and emotionally with another person. They find it very difficult to understand that another person has feelings and do not comprehend what is going on in another person’s mind. They can't relate to that, which is often called a lack of empathy. Renowned psychologist Dr. Robert Hare, a specialist in the field of psychopathy, explains that it is just as difficult for a psychopath to understand what emotions are, such as pity, guilt and shame, as it is for a colour-blind person to understand what the colour red looks like.
Nevertheless, the psychopath can fine-tune these emotions to a certain extent: acting and making the other person believe that there is indeed a profound emotional life. “They know the words, but not the music,” says Dr. Hare. They don’t really feel it.
It is known that people who have spent time with a psychopathic person, in close proximity and over a long duration, report that they have come to realise that something is wrong. Something is missing on a level of emotions and feelings. In their explanations you often hear phrases like: 'does not put himself in someone else's shoes'. 'Easily takes someone for a ride or manipulates it for one's own advantage', 'makes inappropriate comments in front of others while you should understand that saying something like that is clearly transgressive', 'lies easily', 'becomes aggressive quickly if he does not get his way and does not seem to feel guilty about it afterwards', 'constantly pushes boundaries and tension', and 'behaves irresponsibly'.
The psychopath in the workplace
When a psychopathic person is involved in incidents of social insecurity and transgressive behaviour, we often see that the behaviour has been a problem for a long time and that it did not stop at one incident. It took a long time before someone sounded the alarm. Colleagues of the person are often frustrated and, above all, scared. They do not dare to take any action, for fear of reprisals. In many cases, the person in question is avoided and colleagues as well as managers choose to ignore the undesirable behaviour and to downplay it. If there has already been someone who has tried to confront the person about his behaviour, this will have little effect on the situation. Problems are denied or blamed on others. Or the person becomes aggressive and starts a fight.
Psychopaths are not easily discouraged and constantly strive for an even better, better paid or more senior position. They are attracted to positions of power and money. Manipulation, playing people off against each other and putting them under pressure are easily used to achieve their own goals. The essential point is that when they are confronted about their reckless and aggressive attitude, no sense of shame, guilt or remorse is aroused. Such emotions will therefore never be the motivation for them to leave the company. It is therefore not surprising that such individuals can sometimes work for years in an organisation, despite multiple incidents.
Unfortunately, we see too often that it is not the (psychopathic) perpetrator but the victim of the transgressive behaviour who ultimately leaves the company. In many cases, companies lose precious and valuable employees. The damage caused is often underestimated by organisations: dismissals, long-term absences, increased sick leave, lack of motivation, stress, difficulty concentrating, etc. are well-known phenomena among staff and this naturally has an impact on work performance.
The Benefits of a Psychopathic Personality
Psychopaths thrive in competitive and hierarchical work environments, and the very personality traits they are known for—superficial charm, manipulative behaviour, lack of fear and shame—can help them rise to the top.
Scientific research shows that psychopaths who hold high positions in an organisation are often praised for their charisma and ability to develop new ideas. They can operate purposefully and strategically and are able to make complex or emotionally charged decisions quickly. Strategic decisions that are beneficial to the director himself and perhaps also to the company, but often not to employees. In essence, they have no interest in the personal suffering they cause. The ruthlessness in business decisions is striking.
It is interesting to note that scientific studies show that the actual performance that the psychopathic leader delivers is usually not good but downright weak. The more psychopathic, the worse the performance.
How common is psychopathy?
Psychopathy often evokes images of murderous criminals and ruthless serial killers. Hollywood has taught us that psychopaths are bloodthirsty individuals but the reality is much more subtle. Psychopaths are not always violent and most function well in society, in relationships and in the workplace. As mentioned, they can appear charming, intelligent and convincing but at crucial moments lack empathy, guilt and a moral compass. This makes them dangerous in a way that is less visible but can be even more destructive.
Approximately 1% of society meets the diagnostic criteria of psychopathy. This also means that there is a larger group that just misses the criteria required for an official diagnosis, the so-called subclinical group. They don't have the diagnosis, but that doesn't mean they don't exhibit destructive behaviour. Research, by the above-mentioned scientist Dr. Robert Hare, suggests that the percentage of psychopaths in senior and managerial positions in organisations is higher than in the general society: between 4 and 5%.
Psychopathy and risk
The message should be clear: psychopathic traits can give the person a successful career, while at the same time they can be disastrous for the organisation and the people around them.
The risks of a psychopath in a leadership position can be summarised as follows:
- Ethical risks: Manipulation, abuse of power and an organisational culture characterised by fear and distrust.
- Financial damage: Risky behaviour, fraud or reckless decisions without considering the consequences.
- Loss of talent: Employees feel undermined, stressed or burned out and leave the company.
- Social insecurity: The person does not contribute to a healthy culture that serves as a basis for combating socially unsafe and transgressive behaviour.
- Incidents of violence: The psychopath is vulnerable to displaying abuse of power, repeated bullying, intimidation, false accusations, blackmail, stalking and threats in the workplace.
- Reputational damage: If it becomes known that, for example, there is repeated transgressive behaviour and the lack of a directive approach, this can seriously damage the reputation of the organisation.
What can organisations do?
There is now sufficient knowledge about psychopathy and over the years, sound psychological screening instruments have been developed. These can be used to identify personality traits and therefore also psychopathic characteristics. The expertise to assess potential risk posed by a person with a certain position in a particular working environment is available.
Organisations could consider expanding the standard pre-employment screening for special or sensitive positions with a psychological examination, consisting of several interviews and administration of an extensive, validated personality questionnaire. A screening that is aimed at identifying potential risks. The outcome of such an investigation certainly does not have to lead to a decision whether the person will be hired or not but the sound insight into the behaviour of the new employee can certainly contribute to a risk management plan: a strategy aimed at protecting both the new employee and the people around him, and at preventing unwanted incidents.
Please feel free to contact us to discuss what we can do for your organisation.
About the Nuance of Narcissism
Month: March 2025
In recent years, narcissism has become a ‘hot topic’. On the internet and social media more and more articles can be found that draw attention to the subject, give tips on how to recognise narcissism and how to deal with it. This ranges from relationship advice to advice on how to handle your narcissistic boss or colleagues, and a leaders’ dysfunction is often attributed to their alleged narcissism.
Even though increasing awareness of narcissism is a positive development, complex psychological and psychiatric diagnoses are often described in a superficial way, both in online media and in management, self-help and other popular books. Although narcissism should be considered on a spectrum, people talk about “the narcissist” as if it were a delineated and easily identifiable type of person. Tips for dealing with a narcissist range from “spread syrup around his mouth” to “break contact and run.”
In addition, it is often implied that narcissists always deliberately set out to hurt others, frequently conflating it with other psychological constructs such as psychopathy. Even in semi-scientific publications, individuals with narcissistic traits are often quickly condemned, and the question where narcissistic behaviour comes from is too rarely asked. This results in people remaining blind to the important genesis on the one hand, and on the other hand seldom consider how narcissistic traits can possibly be used for the better. For narcissism, when used in a controlled environment, can also have benefits.
What is narcissism?
Narcissism is a pattern of self-centered, arrogant and unempathetic behavior. It is usually deployed as a defense mechanism by psychologically damaged individuals to compensate for an unstable sense of self. This unstable foundation is often the result of an attachment deficit. During their childhood, high-narcissistic individuals have often missed what is essential for a healthy psychological development: unconditional love, warmth and acceptance by their primary caretakers. Because their needs for love and acceptance have not been met sufficiently by anyone, they have learned early in life that others cannot be trusted, and have learned that they are in fact on their own. If others ultimately don’t care about you and will leave you anyway, why even bother about them?
From this follows a nuance emphasized by some scholars: deep-down, high-narcissistic individuals do want to trust people, cooperate, and even form emotionally intimate relationships, but they do not dare to. They know no better than that the other person will disappoint them anyway, just as their primary caretakers constantly did. Egocentrism, arrogance and unempathetic behavior then serve as their defenses to avoid being damaged again. This is not a conscious process, but this dynamic has become part of the individual’s emotional make-up.
Narcissism in organizations
In cases we are involved in regarding troubling behavior and social insecurity, we are often confronted with ongoing, often serious misconduct, and deal with victims who suffer substantial emotional harm as a result. Psychological consideration of offenders’ behavior in such cases frequently points toward the presence of narcissistic personality traits, or disorder. The hypersensitivity to rejection, the self-centered behavior, the urge to take revenge and the disregard for the consequences of one’s behavior are frequently encountered in our cases of stalking, threats and sexually aggressive behavior. Furthermore, the presence of narcissistic traits poses an increased risk to white-collar criminal behavior. Our conclusion: narcissism can cause substantial problems in organizations, and its devastating impact on individuals should not be underestimated.
Narcissistic individuals often come across as confident and tend to be charismatic, goal-oriented and ambitious. As a result, they often enjoy an above average social status and financial prosperity. They often end up in leadership positions because of the aforementioned characteristics. In addition to the individual benefits, a leader's narcissism can also bring benefits to an organization. Narcissistic leaders tend to be charming and know how to inspire their employees. This can be helpful to organizations. Leaders who are self-confident, decisive and goal-oriented can be of value to an organization, especially during times of crisis. What distinguishes a good leader in this from a dysfunctional leader is not the presence or absence of narcissistic traits, it is how a leader deals with his own narcissism. This does however require a certain degree of self-insight and self-criticism, which will be less likely amongst those who fit the diagnostic criteria for personality disorder.
An antidote to narcissism?
Can highly narcissistic individuals get rid of their narcissism? At its core, this is not possible. These individuals have often been damaged in their lives such that the narcissistic dynamic is so deeply ingrained. However, this does not mean that narcissistic individuals cannot learn to deal with their narcissism. If these individuals are able and willing to reflect on their own behavior and are also willing to look into the abyss of their own past, they can perhaps grow into solid, effective and virtuous leaders. This can lead to significant improvements, both for the narcissistic individual and for the organization.
A nuanced view of narcissism is important: recognizing both its potential dangers and risks, as well as being mindful of its origins and possible benefits. Recognizing (clinical) narcissistic characteristics, distinguishing narcissism from other psychological constructs and setting up a strategy to manage the risks and further support the victim or organization requires extensive training and study.
Dantes has this expertise and can help organizations with complex situations in which narcissistic dynamics may play a role. Do you have questions about this article or about what Dantes can do for your organization? More information and contact details can be found at www.dantespsychology.com.
Marijn Tingen
‘Confirmation bias’, ‘groupthink’ & ‘normalisation of deviance’: De onzichtbare vijanden van een sociaal veilige organisatie
Month: March 2025
In the modern business world, we strive for innovation, efficiency and a healthy work environment where everyone feels safe. Yet these goals are often undermined by subtle but powerful psychological phenomena. Confirmation bias and groupthink are mechanisms that can cloud critical thinking and communication, which is so important when it comes to social safety.
Obviously, the absence of neutral and objective consideration of information, weighing and making subsequent decisions can lead to wrong or clumsy decisions. Recognising and breaking these patterns is essential if one strives for a socially safe environment and healthy work culture.
What are confirmation bias and groupthink?
Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek, interpret or remember information in a way that confirms our own pre-existing beliefs. This may cause us to ignore or minimise conflicting information, or information that does not fall within the boundaries of our own beliefs, opinions and views. The result is a distorted view of reality. When individuals or teams are not open to new or different perspectives, this can lead to dangerous processes such as tunnel vision and not seeing or not taking critical information seriously.
Even in groups, ‘bias’ is our enemy. Groupthink occurs in a group where there is usually a greater or lesser desire for consensus and harmony. Acceptance and consideration of alternative ideas that do not fit within the norms or culture of the group are suppressed and divergent views of group members are subtly dismissed or in some cases simply ignored or even addressed with hostility.
It is known that group members who have opinions or have information or knowledge that differs from what most of the group thinks or wants, are not as inclined to stand up and share their vision. On the contrary, they are inclined to put their own opinions on the back burner and not make them known. In fact, they are even more likely to accept and follow the group's predominant ideas, even if they have a different opinion. In other words, they conform and exhibit behaviour that is in line with what the rest of the group is doing. Several psychological experiments confirm this interesting and dangerous psychological phenomenon. People do not want to be left out of the group and certainly do not like to endure criticism from the majority. As with confirmation bias, the risk of making wrong decisions also increases here and this certainly applies to those who investigate incidents in a team.
Many, perhaps even you, reading this piece now will claim that they are resilient enough to these mechanisms, are familiar with these phenomena and therefore less susceptible to the dangers. But be warned, it is an invisible enemy that can target anyone, including the person writing this piece, experienced researchers and those who consider themselves to be self-confident, independent thinkers.
Research shows that groups led by a dominant person who has poorer skills in dealing with criticism are more susceptible to groupthink, as are groups that must work under a lot of pressure or are confronted with a lot of stress. Groupthink can lead to risky decisions and a culture in which errors, misconduct and abuses are not identified or are identified too late.
Another relevant experiment is the Wason Selection Task. This study showed that people are more likely to seek evidence that confirms their beliefs than evidence that contradicts them. Participants were given four cards with a rule such as: 'If there is a vowel on one side, then there is an even number on the other side.' Most people chose cards that could confirm the rule rather than disprove it, which is a classic example of confirmation bias. In organisations, this leads to tunnel vision and risky decision-making if people do not actively seek out counter-evidence.
The impact on organisations
At DANTES we have often seen how these phenomena can influence teams working on social safety, researchers and investigators. Bias can also cause organisations to stick with outdated strategies despite clear signals that change is necessary.
A classic example of the dangers of bias is the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. There was peer pressure and a strong desire from the dominant leadership to stay on schedule. Many engineers were very aware of a specific defect but had already accepted that deviation as a group. After all, there had already been a few previous successful launches, despite those specific technical flaws. The smart engineers had slowly accepted the technical error and came to view it as 'normal'. They didn't put in any more effort or take the time to fix the obvious problem. The Challenger disaster was caused by this defect.
This phenomenon is also known as 'normalisation of deviance'. In the context of social safety, think of socially unsafe behaviour in the workplace that is slowly but surely accepted (normalised) by the dominant group. There is a gradual shift in standards. An outsider or new employee who joins the team will initially be surprised and may condemn the unsafe behaviour or even bring it up for discussion. However, the group hardly reacts to the warnings and concerns of the new colleague, because they have long since normalised the unsafe behaviour. What the employee does is no longer strange or weird or harmful to them. After all, he has been exhibiting the unusual behaviour for a long time and nothing serious has ever resulted from it. There is a good chance that the new employee will gradually conform to this prevailing vision. Groupthink is introduced. The socially unsafe behaviour continues, victims do not dare to come forward or are convinced that they are being oversensitive and should not act this way. Until it escalates and a serious, violent incident occurs.
The Psychology of Totalitarianism
In his book The Psychology of Totalitarianism, Dr. Mattias Desmet discusses how mass formation and totalitarian tendencies can arise from mechanisms such as confirmation bias and groupthink. He states that in times of uncertainty and fear, people tend to conform to dominant narratives, even if they are harmful. This process can result in a collective loss of critical thinking and individual autonomy.
Desmet describes how in society certain ideas or policy choices are accepted unchallenged, because differing opinions are discouraged or even punished. This not only happens at a political level, but also within organisations, where employees may be afraid to go against prevailing opinion. This creates blind spots in policies and strategies, which can ultimately be detrimental to both employees and the organisation.
The importance of breaking patterns
Breaking through the phenomena discussed above is crucial for promoting a culture of openness and critical reflection. This is not only essential for innovation and growth but also for ensuring social safety within an organisation. When there is a culture where people feel free to express concerns and share differing opinions, the general sense of social safety increases, as does the willingness to report and flexibility to change. Potential problems and events that could jeopardise the safe culture are addressed faster and more effectively.
For example, a lack of critical reflection can lead to employees not speaking out about unsafe situations or ethical misconduct. This poses a significant risk, especially in sectors where safety and integrity are crucial. Problems remain under the radar for longer and can eventually escalate. Internal investigations into incidents are less objective and problematic employees get off scot-free. Outsiders wonder how it is possible that someone who has displayed long-term, serious and repeated misconduct can still work in the department that he has terrorised for years. An extreme example, but we do encounter them in practice.
Strategies for Organisations
To break these destructive patterns, organisations can consider the following steps:
Encourage Diversity: Build teams with diverse backgrounds and perspectives to explore a broader range of ideas and solutions. Different insights can help minimise blind spots in decision-making.
Creating a culture of open dialogue: Encourage employees to express their opinions without fear of repercussions. This can be done by implementing anonymous feedback systems or by training leadership in open communication.
Conduct independent evaluations: Involve external experts in decision-making processes to minimize bias and gain objective insights.
Offer awareness training: Educate employees about the dangers of confirmation bias and groupthink and how to recognise and avoid them. This can help them to be more aware and critical of information and decision-making.
Appoint a 'Devil’s Advocate': Encourage teams to appoint someone to take on the role of critical questioner to encourage diverse perspectives and reduce peer pressure.
Conclusion
By actively working to recognise and counteract confirmation bias and groupthink, organisations can create an environment in which critical thinking flourishes and both individuals and teams reach their full potential. This not only contributes to better decision-making and innovation but also to a culture that promotes social safety and willingness to report.
For more information on how DANTES can support your organisation in fostering a culture of critical thinking and openness, visit www.dantespsychology.com
Inge Nijenhuis
School violence in Sweden: Lessons from the Örebro shooting & how to prevent future tragedies
Month: March 2025
On Tuesday 4th February 2025 in the city of Örebro, Sweden, 35-year-old Rickard Andersson brought two rifles and a shotgun, 200 rounds of ammunition and three smoke grenades to a community college to brutally murder and seriously injure a total of sixteen people before taking his own life. This event has deeply affected Sweden as a nation, leading to widespread grief and calls for action to improve community safety.
The Swedish police are still investigating a motive for the attack, and they expect it will be a long time before they can provide a reliable answer. This is partly because Rickard was found dead at the scene, partly because he has lived an isolated life and partly because it is still unclear how he acted online. However, while the school shooting appears to have been planned, as evidenced by Rickard’s purchase of ammunition and smoke grenades prior to the attack, the police currently believe that Rickard’s selection of victims was random rather than targeted. In addition, although most of the students at the college were of foreign origin, the police have not yet found any clear evidence of a racial or political motive. At this point, the only thing that clearly links Rickard to the community college is that he was enrolled there twice.
Rickard Andersson lived in a small studio apartment in Örebro and was often described as a loner by neighbours and others who lived nearby. Rickard’s classmates have stated that Rickard became shy and timid during middle school, and his high school teacher described him as one of the most difficult students she had ever worked with. The teacher said that Rickard was extremely socially awkward and that she never managed to have a dialogue with him. In addition, Rickard maintained an anonymous profile online, being very careful about leaving digital traces and used encrypted communications. Moreover, Rickard’s social welfare benefits were cut off a few years ago, on the grounds that he had not applied for enough jobs to receive such support. Recently, videos have surfaced of Rickard reading official letters about the withdrawal of his welfare benefits and requirements to declare his finances.
How often do school shootings occur?
The United States has the highest number of school shootings in the world, with approximately 1,375 documented incidents since 2000. In addition, the U.S. has seen a sharp increase in school shootings over the past 25 years. From about 37 annual school shootings in 2000-2010 to what appears to be about 300 annual shootings in 2021-2024. In Europe, school shootings are much less common, with approximately 15-20 incidents over the past 25 years. European countries that have experienced more than one school shooting during this period include Germany, Finland, France, and the Netherlands. Sweden has experienced a total of two school shootings. The recent Örebro incident in 2025 and a school shooting almost 65 years ago (1961).
Importantly, however, although school shootings occur almost 100 times more frequently in the United States than in Europe, the fatality rate per incident in the U.S. is relatively low (about 0.37 deaths per incident) compared to Europe (about 4-5 deaths per incident). While this suggests that school shootings are uncommon in Europe at this time, recent reports indicate a worrying increase in school violence across the continent.
Risks for school violence
Research shows that educational institutions today face a wide range of risks and threats, and that maintaining a productive campus security landscape is becoming increasingly complex. This is due in part to the changing social dynamics of our society (the patterns and processes by which people interact), rapid advances in technology, and growing geopolitical tensions, which unfortunately suggest that the motivations for school violence will become more diverse and more complex to predict. To further complicate matters, research has clearly shown that there is no psychological profile of those who perpetrate targeted school violence, including school shooters. However, there is a wide range of research that underscores that school shooters do show so-called “warning behaviors” prior to the attack: they (i) leak information about their plans; (ii) display a pathological fixation on a person or issue; (iii) tend to identify strongly with individuals who have previously committed mass murders; (iv) plan and research their crime; and (v) experience and communicate feelings of desperation and helplessness. There is also evidence that these actors often exhibit deviant and concerning behavior prior to the attack, such as stalking and harassment. They often struggle with mental health issues. Research identifies several other risk factors that should be considered when assessing a case of concerning behavior in schools or other organizations, such as: behavioral changes, social isolation, recent loss, excessive entitlement, and self-centered behavior.
How can school violence be prevented?
Because there is no psychological profile of a school shooter, relying on standardized risk behaviors and implementing generic interventions will not be sufficient to identify actors of violence. Instead, educational institutions are encouraged to establish Threat Assessment and Management (TAM) teams that can assess all types of threats, not just school shootings. The TAM team should be trained to follow a systematic process for gathering information about behavioral and psychological patterns that represent changes in behavior and may evidence an accelerating risk. The process includes, for example, enabling community engagement, creating a centralized awareness of active concerns, conducting longitudinal case reassessments, and conducting all of its practices in accordance with relevant laws (including privacy laws), policies, and standards of practice. In essence, a TAM team ensures that every student, employee, and other concerned party knows who to talk to if they have concerns or worries about social safety in the workplace.
Dantes has expertise in threat assessment and several years of experience in setting up, building and training Threat Assessment and Management teams, often referred to as “social safety expert teams” in the European context. Please contact us for more information on setting upThreat Assessment and Management Teams.
Simon Oleszkiewicz