A Poll-Type Question for the New Year

[caraig]

Some time ago, a study was made of the personalities of the leading executives of several major corporations. It was found that their personalities closely match those of sociopaths. Wether you believe in the scientific rigor of the study or not, it does raise some interesting questions. The main one I'd like to hear from folks is this:

Do you feel that sociopath-like behavior is necessarily a preferred attribute, or should be a tolerated attribute, or should be a thoroughly undesired attribute, in the persons of executives of corporations? Is that mindset or personality type desired in the person of a corporate executive, when the corporation in question is either "too big to fail" or whose actions can dramatically affect the economy of the nation and the globe?

EDIT: Let's see if this poll code works....
EDIT2: For the sake of this discussion, we will use the definition of sociopathy being a deprecated term for 'antisocial personality disorder,' which according to DSM-IV is diagnosed by "a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood." Possibly a little vague, but there are further definable symptoms (not repeated here for brevity and to avoid copyright issues. In particular, the Hare PCL-R Factor 1 schedule gives what most psychiatrists consider to be the symptoms of sociopathy.)

Comments

Sociopaths Do Not Make Good Neighbours

[tamahori]

I think it's a rotten idea to have a sociopath doing almost anything. The problem is, the way things are currently set up, and I think it's a failing of the current system (sadly I don't have a better idea) is that that kind of personality tends to lend itself to success in that area.

The thing about a sociopath is that they don't see themselves as part of a society, so they focus purely on what is good for them, right now, without caring about anything else, and in the long run that's not even healthy for the company they are running. Look how many companies go down in flames and the CEO walks away with a golden parachute.

That's the bit I really don't understand. How the top end of big companies seems to have become purely a support structure for a new kind of modern nobility with no apparent link between performance and rewards.

And even bigger problem though is that if you study the apparent personality of the company, you get a sociopath too, which means they, often required by their shareholders, to do anything they can to make money, regardless of what it may do to their local environment (I'm meaning social, political, financial, etc, here, along with the physical aspects) and that's really got a good thing from the viewpoint of the country they are working in.

This is my issue with libertarians, they don't have a good solution for 'bad actors' (and a system that is bound to encourage and support them), assume that everyone in their system will be enlightened and fully aware of everything they need to know, and worst, tend to base their approach on an belief that reality can be compartmentalised, and stuff outside the 'bit I own' won't affect me.

Sorry, ranting a bit there.

To answer your question, there may be uses for sociopaths, but anywhere in charge of something isn't it.

-- Brett

[ruggels.livejournal.com]

Id put it in the maybe department. Sociopaths are sometimes necessary.

Scott

[caraig.livejournal.com]

It would probably help to define 'sociopath' here! =) Which I should have done in the OP. I've edited the OP to reflect this.*

With this in mind, could you give examples of when it would be necessary to have a sociopath in charge?