Posts

Posted on

Personality disorders at work: When you see this person coming, run

Business man with hand extended to the viewer

Personality Disorders at Work

Nearly everyone I encounter when I have my I/O psychology hat on claims to know somebody at work with a personality disorder. “My boss is Narcissistic and OCD.” Or, “I can’t even ‘borrow’ her computer, she’s so Paranoid.” C’mon. Right? (there’s something about that word, “right” that’s beginning to bug me in today’s lingo) Can everyone possibly know someone – at work – that’s crazy?

They probably do. Really. (I bet that surprised you.)

But I don’t mean they’re right regarding the arm-chair clinical diagnosis they usually share with me in hope that I’ll “fix” the deranged individual. Most just happen to be right in a statistical sense that I’ll explain in a sec.

Time Out: I AM NOT A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST. I do not specifically diagnose or treat mental illness in my capacity as an I/O professional. Neither does any other I/O psychologist that doesn’t also have a PhD in clinical psychology. But I do deal with it – probably more effectively than the average person. “Psychological types” is really a misnomer because all expressions of psychology operate within a range, not at discrete points. And so do clinical disorders. Experts in psychology know how to work with a range of “types.”

Almost all of these amateur psychologists are wrong regarding their “remarkably precise” assessments. The person they work with that they think should be “taken away” probably does NOT have a clinical condition personality disorder. And if they do, the assessor frequently misdiagnoses the given disorder.

Breaking News: “Schizo” does not actually mean split personality and “Psychopath” is no longer used as a formal diagnosis for a personality disorder anymore. My advice, stay in your lane.

Where they’re right is in recognizing and calling out dysfunction at work, just not the specifically dysfunctional.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t any clinically affected people at work.

There are.

It doesn’t mean that they (and you) needn’t fear the behavior of some nefarious colleague.

You should.

Prevalence of Personality Disorders at Work

over 4% of people have a personality disorder

Data: A Serious Mental Illness (SMI) is one whereby an individual’s behavior is disruptive to the point of interfering with a significant life activity. Based on findings from a 2016 national survey, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) reports that about 4.2% of US adults suffer from SMIs. Yes, over 4% of people have a personality disorder. (The estimate includes all forms of mental illness beyond personality disorders, but personality disorders are much more prevalent than the rest.) This is higher than the January 2019 unemployment figure of 3.9% (and that was up .2% versus the previous month).

Do the math.

Dangerous Types at Work

Most instances of mental illness at work are not the kind that others need to fear for their safety – especially the personality disorders at work. But this isn’t always the case in an environment where legitimate power by authority is the norm. Here the individual with an SMI can do harm to others – especially, but not exclusively, to direct reports.

There is one clinical personality type (I use, “type” but this type is exclusively a disorder) that should be feared, not for physical safety but for psychological safety. When you see this type of person at work, RUN. These are the folks that can hurt you. These are people of the dark triad type.

The Dark Triad

This “type” is actually a combination of several personality disorders, or traits (“traits” are the behavioral form of “type” and these become “disorders” when they become SMIs.) For this reason, it’s called, “The Dark Triad.” And it’s THE most dangerous of all personality disorders at work.

The three personality disorders that comprise the dark triad include Narcissism, Antisocial, and Borderline. (The original conceptualization of the dark triad specified “Machiavellianism.” Other than Antisocial, “Borderline” is the next closest – but not equivalent – type by conversion of Machiavellianism to the new terminology.)

Here I provide a brief summary of the corresponding behaviors typical of each of the three disorders:

Narcissistic Personality Disorder – Extraordinarily self-confident; grandiosity and entitlement; preoccupation with self; over-estimation of capabilities

Antisocial Personality Disorder – Enjoy taking risks and testing limits; manipulative; deceitful, cunning, and exploitative; disrespectful of people and normative values

Borderline Personality Disorder – Moody; intense but short-lived enthusiasm for people, projects, and things; instability in relationships; hard to please

Essentially, the dark triad individual is self-absorbed, malevolent, and callous. You don’t want to bunk with this person on your team building adventure.

The especially insidious thing about this disorder is attributable to two facets:

  1. Appeal. People with the “dark triad” traits are especially cunning, colorful, charismatic …. And deceitful. They are not only incredibly difficult to identify for their pathological behavior, they’re actually quite charming – on the surface. Even they have themselves convinced that they’re extraordinarily good people. Don’t buy it.
  2. Leadership Potential. Some elements of the dark triad are in fact predictive of leadership. (Guess which ones?) Narcissists tend to rise to high levels in the organization on their own coattails. The intensely enthusiastic traits of the Borderline personality, even if episodic, provide the reinforcing motivation of compliments and appreciation others are comfortable promoting.

And the dark triad is especially hard to assess. On personality tests, these types present themselves as being inclined toward leadership roles, outgoing, conscientious and likeable — all the characteristics that typically predict a high potential leader. I’ve written about how personality tests don’t tell the whole story. Well, the dark triad type comes from one of those books.

people who exhibit dark triad behaviors are attractive

This is a wolf in sheep’s clothing if ever there was one. What makes these features so dangerous is that people who exhibit dark triad behaviors are attractive (they get more dates) and ascendant (they get more promotions).

In terms of risk of impact – it’s high. If you work for someone like this you will be the primary target of attack. It’s important to watch yourself and them. They can do things that are highly disruptive while gliding along the lake like a swan, only you get kicked with their webbed feet (with talons).

Taken separately, each of the three components of the dark triad can deliver a real blow to the self and others’ psychological well-being. However, the antisocial component is undoubtedly the most dangerous of the three.

They don’t just not care about you, they want to hurt you.

People with antisocial personality disorder have a history of delinquency, whether they got caught or not. They push limits over the line not because it will offer them any actual advantage – they simply HAVE to feed an insatiable need to disrupt others. They don’t just not care about you, they want to hurt you. If this is the predominant trait you see in someone – duck and cover (not sustainable) or jump and run (also has its downsides, but generally better than hanging around).

Dealing with the Dark Triad

People with the dysfunctional types of the dark triad can’t be fixed. Even with intensive therapy the recidivism is very high where there is not a co-dependence (i.e., addiction) driving the condition. So, when you see these people coming, you need to take the wheel of your “magic bus” or, be thrown under it.

Here are some tips that may help you to deal better with a person with these co-morbid character traits:

  1. Know the enemy. Identify or validate your suspicious character carefully. There are some known flaws in their game. They tend to lie a lot — and well. Listen for evidence of contradiction or rewriting their past. One of their biggest lies is covering their tracks. They rarely keep a job for longer than 18 months but have excellent “reasons” for why they resigned – most having to do with the former employer’s unethical behavior.
  2. Be sure to include an assessment for the dark triad in your selection and recruitment systems. This assessment needs to be thorough. Simple testing or interviewing will reveal a star that knows how to interview and has plenty of impressive work experience because they’ve been fired so many times. An expert helps here. You do NOT want to hire or promote them. This is a clear case where character counts more than expertise.
  3. Avoid letting them get hyper-angry. Never fight back (especially if it’s your boss). Don’t talk when they’re ranting. Just let the bluster blow itself out. (They like hearing themselves anyway). You’ll have a better chance with them tomorrow – or even later that day. Their attitude can change with the weather.
  4. Feed their need for adoration. As cunning as they are, narcissists can’t resist the Siren’s songs of praise. This tactic can defuse an otherwise explosive situation and give you time to execute your exit strategy.
  5. Protect your actions and behaviors. These liars will stop at nothing to serve themselves and deny others. Keep a third person around to serve as a witness and confidant. Take notes of any/all interactions. Do nothing you wouldn’t do on trial.

If you know how they operate, you can best control, or at least influence, how they behave. But be warned, the Dark Triad is notoriously difficult to outsmart – especially with trickery. They know a thing or two about being manipulative and tend to think others act this way, too. They’re generally a bit on the paranoid side looking out for the types of things they would do to others. A defensive posture in attitude and behavior is the best default strategy.

Now that you’re adequately scared, I’ll remind you that all personality types, including personality disorders at work, exist in degree. I’ve painted an especially dark case to make my point. Most are not this extreme. A sophisticated and level-headed style of communication will help to keep things civil with less explosive outbursts, threats, lies, etc.

Remember, all humans are animals. Some are brutal sluggers. Don’t fight a slugger with your fists.

Psychways is owned and produced by Talentlift, LLC.

Posted on

With “big data” come big risks

Cartoon showing people considering crossing the valley of big data

Prebabble: Sound research is backed by the scientific method; it’s measurable, repeatable and reasonable consistent with theory-based hypotheses. Data analysis is a component of scientific research but is not scientific by itself. This article provides examples of how research or summary conclusions can be misunderstood by fault of either the reviewer or the researcher - especially when big data are involved. It is not specific to psychological research, nor is it a comprehensive review of faulty analysis or big data.

When I was a grad student, (and dinosaurs trod the earth) four terminals connected to a mainframe computer were the only computational resources available to about 20 psychology grad students. “Terminal time,” (beyond the sentence that was graduate school) was as precious and competitively sought after as a shaded parking spot in the summer. (I do write from the “Sunshine State” of Florida)

Even more coveted than time at one of the terminals, data from non-academic sources were incredibly desirable and much harder to come by. To gain access to good organization data was the “holy grail” of industrial organizational psychology dissertations. Whenever data were made available, one was not about to look this gift horse in the mouth without making every effort to find meaningful research within those data. Desperate, but crafty grad students could wrench amazing research from rusty data.

But some data are rusted beyond repair.

One of my cell-, I mean class-, mates came into the possession of a very large organizational database. Ordinarily the envy of those of us without data, such was not the case here. It was well known that this individual’s data, though big, were hollow; a whole lot of “zeroes.” To my surprise and concern, this individual seemed to be merrily “making a go of it” with their impotent data. Once convinced that they were absolutely going to follow through with a degree-eligible study (that no one “understood”), sarcasm got the best of me, “Gee, Jeff (identity, disguised), you’ve been at it with those data for some time. Are any hypotheses beginning to shake out of your analyses?”

“Working over” data in hope of finding a reasonable hypothesis is a breach of proper research and clearly unethical whether one knows it or not. But it happens – more today than ever before.

"Big data" has become the Sirens’ song, luring unwitting, (like my grad school colleague) or unscrupulous, prospectors in search of something – anything - statistically significant. But that’s not the way science works. That’s not how knowledge is advanced. That’s just “rack-n-hack” pool where nobody “calls their shots.”

It isn’t prediction if it’s already happened.

The statistical significance (or probability) of any prediction in relation to a given (already known) outcome is always perfect (hence, a “foregone” conclusion). This is also the source of many a superstition. Suppose you win the lottery by betting on your boyfriend’s prison number. To credit your boyfriend’s “prison name” for your winnings would be a mistake (and not just because he may claim the booty). Neither his number nor your choice of it had any influence in determining the outcome – even-though you did win. But if we didn’t care about “calling our shot’s” we’d argue for the impossibly small odds of your winning ticket as determined by your clever means of its choice.

This error of backward reasoning is also known by the Latin phrase, post hoc, ergo propter hoc, or, “after this, therefore because of this.” It’s not veridical to predict a cause from its effect. Unfortunately, the logic may be obvious, but the practice isn’t.

Sophisticated statistical methods can confuse even well-intended researchers who must decide which end of the line to put an arrow on. In addition, the temptation to “rewind the analysis” by running a confirmatory statistical model (i.e., “calling my shot” analysis) AFTER a convenient exploratory finding (i.e., “rack-n-hack” luck) can be irresistible when one’s career is at stake as is frequently the case in the brutal academic world of “publish or perish.” But doing this is more than unprofessional, it’s cheating and blatantly unethical. (Don’t do this.)

Never before has the possibility of bad research making news been so great. Massive datasets are flung about like socks in a locker room. Sophisticated analyses that once required an actual understanding of the math in order to do the programming can now be done as easily as talking to a wish-granting hockey puck named “Alexa.” (“What statistical assumptions?”) Finally, the ease of publishing shoddy “research” results to millions of readers is as easy as snapping a picture of your cat.

All of the aforementioned faux-paus (or worse) concern data “on the table.” The most dubious risk when drawing conclusions from statistical analyses – no matter how ‘big’ the data are – is posed by the data that AREN’T on the table.

A study may legitimately find a statistically significant effect on children’s grades based on time spent watching TV vs playing outdoors. The study may conclude, “When it comes to academic performance, children that play outside significantly outperform those that watch TV.” While this is a true conclusion, the causality of the finding is uncertain.

To further complicate things, cognitive biases work their way into the hornet’s nest of correlation vs causation. In an effort to simplify the burden on our overworked brains, correlation and causation tend to get thrown together in our “cognitive laundry bin.” Put bluntly, correlation is causation.

Although it’s easy to mentally “jump track” from correlation to causation, the opposite move, i.e., from causation to correlation, is not so naturally risky.

Cigarette makers were “Kool” (can I get in trouble for this?) with labeling that claimed an ‘association’ between smoking and a litany of health problems. They were, not-so-Kool with terminology using the word “causes.”

Causal statements trigger a more substantial and lasting mental impression than statements of association. “A causes B” is declarative and signals “finality,” whereas “A is associated with B” is descriptive and signals “probability.” Depending on how a statement of association is positioned, it can very easily evoke an interpretation of causation.

Sometimes obfuscation is the author’s goal, other times it’s an accident or merely coincidental. Both are misleading (at best) when our eyes for big data are bigger than our stomachs for solid research.

Psychways is owned and produced by Talentlift, LLC.

Posted on

Leadership in Crises: Remembering 9/11

On the anniversary of a life-, and world-changing disaster, I’ve prepared a list of leadership qualities undoubtedly demonstrated on that fateful day in 2001. Like any earth-shaking crisis, memories of where we were and how we felt are vivid for those alive and witness to the tragedy. However, the specific behaviors of the many heroes of that day and event are probably not as vivid for you. Details blur with the overwhelming fear and flood of emotion. This is truly the way that day should be remembered, in our souls – not our heads. But there are notable actions that should be tucked into our memories. Behaviors that saved lives and souls.

This essay is devoted to the heroism of those selfless men and women who paid the ultimate price to save others. May they be forever remembered.

A definition of leadership

One definition of leadership is that leaders reduce uncertainty. This is especially true in crises or disasters. Strong leadership is of paramount importance through crises where lives are at risk and nothing is dependable. No disaster plan can fully prepare for either the particulars or gravity of a catastrophic event. Regrettably, crises and disasters of natural or manmade nature are becoming more common. It’s not a matter of if one will be impacted, but when. As such, leadership through crisis should be a part of every leader’s skillset.

Guidelines and toolkits for managing through disasters have been developed by humanitarian agencies – and they have made a substantial, positive impact. However, as the relatively “obvious” aspects of disasters (infrastructure, rescues, command centers, etc.) these have received more attention than deeper wounds. I’m not against the need for water and shelter, but the psychological impact of such catastrophes can be life-long and warrants improvement. In fact, psychologists have already addressed the psychological factors most prevalent in crises. Here I specifically address some of the primary psychological considerations for leadership in crises. (Note: This is NOT an exhaustive list. There is evidence supporting these behaviors, but this is a guide, not a prescription.)

Leadership Needs in Major Disasters

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a useful framework for “need triage” in major disasters. For most, it’s only during life-changing crises that we are reduced to the most basic of human needs – physiological. For others, this stage of need is chronic. While there are similarities between event-based need states of decimation and chronic need states, the differences are greater. Chronic crises are not the topic here.

The physiological needs characterizing the most fundamental stage of Maslow’s model are clearly the most important and urgent. These define life or death. The immediate treatment for these needs is more about survival than psychological well-being. Psychological factors are absolutely present at this stage, but I do not address them here. These are better for clinicians, both medical and psychological, to address. Leadership is less in demand when biological survival is at risk.

Unlike physiological needs, safety needs are not as easily addressed, and their remediation is not as clear. Psychological security and health are obviously challenged in times of crisis, but we are much less prepared or effective in properly attending to them as the vital, observable and relatively quickly addressed physiological needs. These aren’t overlooked, but the means of dealing with matters of psychological nature is complex, frequently requiring scarce, specialized services that require more time.

Beyond medical or serious clinical needs, leadership is paramount to allay fear and promote psychological safety. The behaviors most effective in times of crisis are not completely different from those typical of comprehensive leadership, but the situation calls for very different use.

In no particular order, the following leadership competencies are recognized by psychologists with additions from myself as being especially important when guiding an organization, or any group or person, through major crisis.

  • Resilience – You’ve heard it, “Put the oxygen mask on yourself first.” No amount of preparation or resolve will work if you don’t. Do whatever it takes to insure or regain your physical and mental well-being. You will attract attention like never before, and it will be remembered. Every move should say “I have control.”
  • Decisiveness – Crises are no time for a census. Decisions must be taken with speed and confidence. These times call for a more concentrated, reassuring source of power that people expect from their authorities.
  • Integrity – Here I mean consistency of behavior more than moral integrity. In a crisis people’s ability to process information is dramatically curtailed. It’s important to send consistent, even predictable, messaging (via action and word) to make things as easy to understand as possible. Radical changes in direction can add to the psychological challenges already at work. Hold the line, as it’s said.
  • Clear direction – As stress limits psychological well-being and functioning, guidance must be provided at a more granular level. The environment is threatening and unfamiliar; step-by-step guidance is frequently necessary.
  • Justice – It is critical that leaders enforce and maintain equitable treatment through crises. Similar to integrity, human expectations of fairness and consistency should be met with just behavior. Together, acting with integrity and justice conveys a reassuring message of control over the situation.
  • Inclusion – This does not negate the need for authoritative control but does temper it. By including others, some who will disagree, a leader entertains a broader set of options. This is important to avoid potentially erroneous “self-generated validity of thinking” and builds acceptance with key constituents.
  • Compassion – This isn’t the time to get “mushy” but subtle acts that stem from a mindset of compassion are especially noticeable among the victims of disasters – and they benefit from it.
  • Presence – Here I mean just show up. The adage, “misery loves company,” bears merit when disaster strikes. If you were not directly impacted by the disaster, go to it. Nothing is as reassuring as “being there” for someone.

There are many more that could be included, and I could have been more efficient via a shorter list. It may not be perfect, but perfection isn’t my goal.

These simply represent a list of potential use to us all, hopefully well before necessary.

Psychways is owned and produced by Talentlift, LLC.