RE: 2007 PIPSC AGM RESOLUTION F-7 - CORE COMPETENCY

Sponsor – A Member of the SP Group

The resolution presented at last year's Annual General Meeting (AGM) was referred to the PIPSC Board of Directors (Board) by the AGM delegates for follow-up and response. The resolution reads as follows:

“Be it resolved that PIPSC undertake an assessment of the feasibility of having emotional intelligence with screening for psychopathic deviance identified as a core competency for all CBM competitions for supervisory or people management positions. Recommendations from this assessment will be presented to the 2008 PIPSC AGM.”

Following the AGM, the Board's Professional Recognition and Qualifications Committee (PRQC) was tasked with responding to the resolution and determining how best to move forward. The PRQC provided views and recommendations based on consultation with experts in the area of forensic assessment, namely, the utility versus the dangers of evaluating psychopathic personality for the purpose of screening managers.

Though it is true that there are far-reaching effects which individuals who are truly psychopathic can have in the workplace, and especially in the position of management, Dr. Hare warns in his manual for the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003) own panacea and that there is a danger if it is seen as such.

The same argument can be made for the use of the newer version, Business Scan (B-Scan) measure which you refer to, the measure for evaluating psychopathy within non-forensic populations (which, at this time, is still currently in development and as such raises issues of lack of testing, validation, and standardization).

Within the correctional setting, where psychopathy is often routinely evaluated, many legal challenges have occurred as a result of inmates being labelled as Apsychopaths@, a term once freely noted in reports, based on an obtained score that meets or passes the defined cut-off recommended by the PCL-R (2003) manual. However, the use of the terminology/label became extremely contentious when, as a result of a score obtained on the PCL-R, inmates were either able to obtain treatment below a certain score point or denied if they fell above it, based on the theory that psychopathy was untreatable. Consequently, high scoring individuals were systematically denied access to programming and marginalised until their parole dates, at which time the parole or conditional release would be denied due to the lack of treatment.

Within the Canadian correctional system, the inmates were concerned that there was a growing reliance on the results of this one measure for decisions regarding whether or not they were able to access treatment and then subsequently being denied parole or conditional release based on the same score obtained at intake, regardless of any indications of change or progress. Their right to parole was determined and often denied due to the score on this one test, which could be influenced by a number of factors including the skill of the assessor. Additionally problematic, and underlying the perception that rights and freedoms were being denied within the justice system and the correctional system, is the fact that the test itself is scored based on theory and extrapolation from that, that psychopaths were untreatable, incorrigible. It should be noted that this is not a belief held by all forensic psychologists and there is also debate on whether the construct is better understood on a continuum or as a diagnostic label per se, which is either present or not based on meeting the cut off score or not. Dr. Hare (2003) believes that you either “are” or “are not” a psychopath, and in later years, he came out publicly and stated that psychopaths may be treatable after all, but that very different forms of therapy would be required; the jury is still out on this. Meanwhile, many other issues relating to the abrogation of rights, human rights, and civil liberties of offenders both in Canada and in the United States arise from the labelling of individuals as "psychopathic."

Turning to Dr. Hare and his colleague Dr. Babiak’s work on the B-Scan: In the book, “Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work,” Drs. Babiak and Hare (2006) put forward an argument for the possibility that psychopaths are increasing in the corporate world due to the shift that has occurred within that world. They argue that although the psychopath has traditionally been known, in fact defined, as characterologically destined to inevitable failure, and also are distinguished by their impulsiveness and need for thrills and excitement, and thus according to theory would neither be capable of rising through the ranks over time in corporate milieu, nor would they be attracted or attractive to such stodgy bureaucratic environments; however, in light of the evolution or shift of corporate environments, Babiak and Hare (2006) argue that the evolution from once bureaucratic and static structures to the current systems with “transitional models” consisting of “fewer layers, simpler systems, terms and controls, more freedom to make decisions” where change has become a necessity for survival and speed and innovation are key, employers began to value “individuals who could shake trees, rattle cages, and get things done quickly,” instead of the traditional candidate who was an “organizational man or woman.” This, they argue, led to an environment or corporate culture that has not only become attractive as an opportunity for the psychopath, but one which would be attracted and susceptible to the outward beguiling charm of one as well.

All this said, the numbers are not impressive as Babiak and Hare (2006) agree, likely only 1% of the general population can be diagnosed as psychopathic and even within populations of federal prisoners at best (most) 15%. It is true they represent disproportionate rates of deviant, violent and criminal acts, however, the danger is great for over diagnosing even among trained professionals. There is what is called the “halo effect” where an evaluator goes into the scoring with an idea that the individual is psychopathic and then allows that perception to colour the scoring of items, while the correct way is to evaluate each item on its own and come up with a number of contexts where that item is notable, for example, one horrific act of gratuitous, callous, violence would not constitute a scoring of callous and remorseless necessarily as the item is evaluated over a number of contexts such as within interpersonal relationship and over the lifespan. By correctly going through item by item the resulting score is not always, and quite frequently not, what your Ahunch@ may have been. This is why we do evaluations that are tied to actuarial scores, because clinical judgment alone has been shown to be a poor predictor compared to empirically based actuarial risk instruments. This is important and perhaps more crucial when evaluating individuals in the general population, who have never even been convicted of a criminal offence.

Babiak and Hare (2006) caution that there is a danger in confusing the presence of a couple of psychopathic like traits with the disorder itself, as with the inmates, displaying what looks like a trait in only one domain area does not constitute a full score on an item, it must be present in more than one context and throughout the lifespan. There are other psychiatric disorders which could be confused with psychopathy as well, even to the trained clinician; in particular, narcissistic personality disorder have much in common, yet the essential lack of conscience and pleasure to cause pain are not present (though one could probably use instances of their behaviour to assume such). Babiak and Hare (2006) point out that in fact, unlike the true psychopath, the narcissist may actually be an asset to mangers; however, what distinguishes them is that they actually are invested in seeing their project, company or “what have you” succeed, as opposed to the psychopath who would rise up, have a bit of fun, and leave a mess and destruction without a care in the world. In short, to quote Babiak and Hare (2006), “a few trees do not a forest make.” Don’t make the mistake of turning one or two symptoms into a general personality assessment or diagnosis.

So, as Babiak and Hare (2006) warn, just because your boss is Acold, hard-driving, and ruthless@ does not make him a psychopath. It could simply be a style of personal leadership and/or a combination of personality and training. Labelling someone a psychopath, by observing or by using a measure (even the B-Scan), has far reaching implications on the individual’s liberty and future, and as with the psychologists evaluating inmates, perhaps more so with Joe Average in the management stream, as they have not been convicted of crimes (presumably) and there needs to be an ethical obligation, and likely legal liability, that must be considered to protect those individuals being screened.

Finally, knowing that Industrial Psychologists have their own toolbox of measures which they use to identify suitable candidates for various positions, and also knowing that the B-Scan is still in its infancy in terms of predictive validity and norms, this may not be included for exactly the reasons mentioned, the danger in misuse of the score (falsely identifying someone and the ramifications for loss of opportunity, infringement of rights based on the controversial label), and the ethical and legal obligations and liabilities related to this. More dangerous still, would be to have non-clinicians entering the realm of assessing in an HR department where the legal rights and ethical guidelines and obligations may not be known or understood. For these reasons, using the B-Scan in the federal public service for anyone appears dangerous in terms of the risk of misuse and abuse, and this appears to far outweigh any benefit.

A better alternative at this time for concerned individuals comes from the final chapters in Snakes and Suits (Babiak & Hare, 2006) which articulates the following recommendations to protect yourself from potential psychopaths:

1. Do not label anyone a psychopath
2. Build and maintain relationships
3. Understand options your company may offer
4. Avoid being labeled a complainer

How to handle a psychopathic boss:

1. Build and maintain a reputation as a good performer
2. Put it in writing
3. Make good use of your performance appraisal
4. Avoid confrontations
5. Make a formal complaint
6. Leave on your own terms

The directions given are good ones and worth looking up and reading for anyone dealing with a bully of any sort as well as for those exposed to a truly psychopathic boss or potential co-worker. Sadly, we will all be affected by a psychopath at one point or another in our lives and the reality is they will continue to slip by detection of even the most keen and experienced clinician with the best tools on occasion; learning more about them and in particular how to navigate a workplace which you suspect is affected by one, is likely the best strategy for dealing with this problem in the workplace.

REFERENCES

Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON., Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Babiak, P, & Hare, R.D. (2006). Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths go to work. New York: Regan Books.