Leadership and Psychopathy: The Case for Conceptual Discipline

Leadership and Psychopathy 1 Leadership and Psychopathy: The Case for Conceptual Discipline David Matta American University of Beirut https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17946444 Abstract The language of psychopathology has become increasingly prevalent in leadership and management discourse, particularly in references to "psychotic" or "psychopathic" leaders. While such terminology is often used to capture experiences of organizational harm, abuse of power, or ethical failure, its uncritical application risks conceptual misplacement and diagnostic drift. This paper argues that psychiatric constructs are frequently extended beyond their legitimate epistemic domains and applied to functional leadership populations without sufficient methodological justification. Drawing on psychology, leadership studies, the sociology of diagnosis, and recent work on epistemic fragility in research interpretation and transmission, the paper shows how distortions arise not only in popular discourse but also through professional and secondary academic interpretations of empirical findings. By distinguishing clinical pathology, personality traits, motivational orientations, reflective awareness, and systemic factors, the paper advances a spectrum-based understanding of leadership dysfunction—the Motivation-Excess-Awareness (MEA) framework—that avoids diagnostic reductionism. The framework offers concrete guidance for assessment, development, and governance interventions, along with testable hypotheses for future empirical research. Rather than denying the existence of severe personality pathology, the analysis calls for greater conceptual discipline, epistemic humility, and restraint in the use of psychiatric language in leadership research and practice. Keywords: Leadership; Psychopathology; Diagnostic Drift; Conceptual Misplacement; Medicalization; Power and Authority; Spectrum Models; Epistemic Fragility; Reflective Awareness 1. Introduction In recent years, leadership and management discourse has increasingly adopted the language of psychopathology to describe organizational failure, abuse of power, and ethical breakdown. Terms such as "psychotic leader," "psychopathic manager," or "corporate psychopath" appear across popular leadership books, practitioner-oriented commentary, and, at times, academic discussions. These labels are typically employed to capture the perceived irrationality, cruelty, or moral indifference of individuals in positions of authority and to offer an intuitive explanation for the harm experienced by employees and organizations. While this language reflects concern with leadership dysfunction, it raises important conceptual and epistemic questions. Psychiatric and clinical constructs carry specific diagnostic meanings, methodological requirements, and ethical implications. When these constructs are extended beyond their original domains and applied to functional leadership populations without appropriate qualification, they risk functioning as rhetorical devices rather than explanatory tools. This process, which this paper characterizes as conceptual Leadership and Psychopathy 2 misplacement, is frequently accompanied by diagnostic drift, whereby clinical terms migrate into non-clinical contexts while retaining the appearance of scientific authority. Importantly, the problem cannot be attributed solely to sensationalist journalism or lay misunderstanding. Distortions often arise earlier in the epistemic chain, through secondary academic interpretations, professional summaries, and practitioner discourse that abstract research findings from their methodological constraints. Hypotheses are treated as explanations, correlations as stable tendencies, and tendencies as quasi-diagnostic profiles. By the time such interpretations reach broader audiences, nuance regarding uncertainty, scope, and context has often been lost, while the legitimacy conferred by psychological science remains. This paper does not deny the existence of severe personality pathology among some individuals in leadership positions, nor does it seek to minimize the real harm caused by abusive or destructive leaders. Rather, its aim is to clarify the limits of psychopathological explanation in leadership studies and to caution against the uncritical use of psychiatric language as a substitute for ethical, organizational, and systemic analysis. By disentangling clinical pathology, personality traits, motivational orientations, reflective awareness, and institutional factors, the paper argues for a more precise and responsible framework for understanding leadership dysfunction. This paper adopts a conceptual and epistemological analysis as its methodological approach. Its claims are intended to refine interpretation rather than replace empirical research, and the scope is explicitly theoretical rather than empirical. The framework advanced here—termed the Motivation-Excess-Awareness (MEA) framework—is offered as a corrective lens and a foundation for future empirical investigation, with specific testable hypotheses articulated in Section 6. The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 clarifies the meaning of "psychosis" and related constructs, distinguishing clinical diagnoses from trait-based and motivational accounts. Section 3 examines the mechanisms of diagnostic drift and conceptual misplacement in leadership discourse, situating these processes within broader literatures on medicalization and the sociology of diagnosis. Section 4 analyzes the moralization of psychopathology in management literature, while Section 5 proposes the MEA framework as a spectrum-based alternative grounded in motivation, excess, and awareness, including concrete guidance for operationalization. Section 6 outlines implications for leadership research and practice, presents testable hypotheses, and Section 7 concludes by emphasizing the ethical and epistemic importance of conceptual discipline in leadership studies. 2. What Do We Mean by "Psychotic"? Conceptual Clarification A central source of confusion in leadership discourse lies in the ambiguous and often imprecise use of the term "psychotic." In its strict clinical sense, psychosis refers to a class of psychiatric conditions characterized by impaired reality testing, including hallucinations, delusions, or severe disturbances of thought and perception. Such conditions fall squarely within the domain of psychiatry and clinical psychology and are diagnosed through established criteria, professional assessment, and longitudinal evaluation (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). Clinical psychosis is relatively rare and, as such, lies largely outside the scope of leadership and management studies. Distinct from clinical psychosis is the construct of psychopathy, which has been extensively studied in personality psychology. Contemporary models conceptualize psychopathy not as a Leadership and Psychopathy 3 categorical diagnosis but as a dimensional constellation of traits, typically including shallow affect, diminished empathy, manipulativeness, impulsivity, and reduced guilt or remorse (Hare, 2003; Patrick et al., 2009). Even within this literature, psychopathy is treated as a heterogeneous and probabilistic construct, not a categorical diagnosis, with considerable variation across individuals and contexts. Importantly, psychopathy is not defined by any single motive or goal, such as power-seeking, ambition, dominance, or status orientation. Rather, it refers to enduring patterns of interpersonal, affective, and behavioral functioning. A further distinction must be made between clinical psychopathy and subclinical psychopathic traits commonly examined in leadership research. While clinical psychopathy represents the extreme end of the trait distribution and typically involves significant impairment or harm, subclinical traits refer to milder expressions of these characteristics that may be present in otherwise functional individuals (Lilienfeld et al., 2015). Leadership research often focuses on these subclinical manifestations, yet findings from this domain are frequently generalized as if they pertained to clinical pathology. This slippage between subclinical and clinical is one of the primary mechanisms through which diagnostic drift occurs. A further distinction must be drawn between personality traits and motivational orientations. Motivations such as achievement, affiliation, power, dominance, recognition, or prestige are ubiquitous features of human psychology and have long been central to leadership research (McClelland, 1985; Winter, 1973). None of these motivations is inherently pathological. On the contrary, leadership roles often require individuals to exhibit elevated levels of particular motivations, resulting in systematic deviations from population averages. Such deviations should be expected and cannot, in themselves, be taken as indicators of psychological disorder. Equating leadership behavior with psychopathology therefore risks a category error. Leadership decisions are enacted within organizational roles, incentive structures, cultural norms, and power asymmetries that profoundly shape perception, judgment, and action. Behaviors that appear callous, rigid, or morally troubling to observers may reflect strategic calculation, institutional constraint, or conflicting value systems rather than clinical abnormality. To infer psychopathology directly from such behavior without accounting for these contextual factors conflates moral evaluation with psychological diagnosis. Finally, it is important to emphasize that dysfunction and harm can arise in the absence of clinical pathology. Leaders may act rationally, intentionally, and strategically while remaining insufficiently aware of their own motivational excesses, ethical blind spots, or the impact of their decisions on others. Such cases fall within the domain of functional psychology and organizational ethics rather than psychiatry. Clarifying these conceptual boundaries is a necessary prerequisite for any responsible discussion of leadership dysfunction and for avoiding the diagnostic reductionism that has increasingly characterized leadership discourse. 3. Diagnostic Drift and Conceptual Misplacement in Leadership Discourse The increasing use of psychiatric terminology in leadership discourse can be understood through the related processes of diagnostic drift and conceptual misplacement. Diagnostic drift refers to the gradual expansion of clinical concepts beyond their original epistemic and methodological boundaries, often without explicit acknowledgment of the shift (Rosenberg, 2002; Jutel, 2009). Conceptual misplacement occurs when constructs designed to explain Leadership and Psychopathy 4 individual pathology are applied to phenomena that belong to different explanatory levels, such as organizational behavior, moral disagreement, or systemic dysfunction. 3.1 Medicalization and the Expansion of Diagnostic Categories These processes must be situated within broader sociological analyses of medicalization—the tendency to frame an expanding range of human conditions and behaviors in medical or psychiatric terms (Conrad, 2007; Zola, 1972). Medicalization scholarship has documented how conditions once understood as moral failings, social deviance, or normal variation have been progressively redefined as medical disorders requiring professional intervention. Classic examples include the transformation of excessive drinking into "alcoholism," childhood misbehavior into "ADHD," and persistent sadness into "clinical depression" (Conrad & Schneider, 1992). The medicalization of leadership dysfunction follows a strikingly parallel trajectory. Behaviors once described in moral terms (ruthlessness, callousness, selfishness) or organizational terms (authoritarian management, toxic culture) are increasingly reframed as expressions of individual psychopathology. This reframing carries significant consequences: it individualizes systemic problems, pathologizes deviation from normative expectations, and transfers explanatory authority from ethics and organizational analysis to psychiatry and clinical psychology. As Conrad (2007) observes, medicalization often proceeds through "definitional expansion"—the gradual loosening of diagnostic boundaries until concepts capture far more than originally intended. In leadership discourse, this definitional expansion is evident in the progressive broadening of "psychopathy" from a clinical construct with specific diagnostic criteria to a colloquial label applied to any leader perceived as harmful, self-serving, or morally deficient. The construct's semantic field expands while its diagnostic precision erodes. What remains is the rhetorical force of psychiatric language—its capacity to convey abnormality, danger, and diminished moral standing—divorced from its methodological foundations. In the context of leadership studies, diagnostic drift typically follows a recognizable trajectory. Empirical research initially advances cautious, probabilistic claims concerning correlations between certain traits, motivations, or behavioral tendencies and leadership outcomes. These findings are explicitly bounded by methodological limitations, contextual specificity, and uncertainty. However, as research is summarized, interpreted, and communicated across academic, professional, and practitioner domains, these boundaries are frequently eroded. Hypotheses are progressively treated as explanations, correlations as stable dispositions, and dispositions as quasi-diagnostic profiles. This interpretive amplification is particularly evident in discussions of psychopathy and leadership. Studies that identify associations between specific personality traits or motivational patterns and leadership behavior are often abstracted from their original scope and presented as definitive accounts of leadership pathology (Palmen et al., 2021). In some cases, such reinterpretations are advanced not only by lay commentators but also by professionals and secondary academic sources who regard themselves as scientifically informed. As a result, constructs intended to illuminate risk patterns or theoretical relationships are reified into explanatory labels that exceed their evidentiary basis. The problem is compounded by the moral and diagnostic weight carried by psychiatric language. Terms such as "psychotic" or "psychopathic" do not merely describe behavior; they imply abnormality, danger, and diminished agency. When such terms are applied to Leadership and Psychopathy 5 leadership behavior without clinical assessment or diagnostic warrant, they function less as psychological explanations than as moral judgments cloaked in scientific authority. This transformation is rarely made explicit, allowing normative condemnation to masquerade as empirical insight. Importantly, diagnostic drift cannot be attributed solely to popularization or journalistic exaggeration. Distortions often arise earlier in the epistemic chain, through professional summaries, teaching materials, consulting frameworks, and secondary interpretations that prioritize clarity, applicability, or narrative coherence over conceptual precision. Incentive structures within academia and practice—such as publication pressure, audience engagement, and demand for actionable insights—further encourage simplification and overgeneralization. Leadership contexts are especially vulnerable to these distortions due to power asymmetry and attribution bias. Observers who experience harm, exclusion, or moral injury may reasonably seek explanations that personalize responsibility and render suffering intelligible. Psychiatric labels offer such explanations by locating causality within the leader's psychology rather than within complex organizational systems. While psychologically compelling, this move risks obscuring the broader institutional, cultural, and structural conditions that shape leadership behavior and enable harm. 3.2 Interpretive Slippage Between Research and Discourse An important but often overlooked dimension of diagnostic drift concerns the interpretation of research findings across epistemic contexts. Misapplication of psychiatric terminology in leadership discourse cannot be attributed solely to lay misunderstanding or popular exaggeration. In many cases, interpretive slippage occurs at intermediate levels of knowledge transmission, including professional commentary, practitioner-oriented summaries, and secondary academic interpretations. Empirical research on psychopathy and leadership typically advances cautious, probabilistic claims, emphasizing heterogeneity, contextual moderators, and methodological limitations. However, as these findings are translated into broader discourse, hypotheses are frequently reinterpreted as explanations, correlations as tendencies, and tendencies as stable psychological profiles. In some instances, such profiles are further reified into quasidiagnostic categories, despite the absence of clinical assessment or longitudinal evidence. This process of interpretive amplification is particularly evident in the reception of studies that identify motivational or personality correlates of leadership outcomes. Constructs intended to illuminate risk patterns or theoretical relationships are often abstracted from their original context and presented as definitive accounts of leadership pathology. Notably, such reinterpretations are sometimes propagated by individuals who regard themselves as scientifically informed, thereby lending additional authority to conceptually unwarranted extensions. 3.3 Epistemic Fragility, Bias, and the Transmission of Research Findings Concerns about diagnostic drift in leadership discourse must also be situated within a broader problem of epistemic fragility in the production and transmission of research findings. As emphasized by Edmans (2024), scientific studies may be conducted with methodological rigor yet still yield conclusions that are incomplete, biased, or misleading when interpreted outside their original context. Such distortions do not require misconduct; they often arise Leadership and Psychopathy 6 from selection effects, confirmation bias, incentive structures, and pressures to produce compelling narratives. In leadership and management research, these vulnerabilities are particularly pronounced. Empirical findings frequently rely on correlational data, proxy measures, and context-specific samples, all of which require careful qualification. When results concerning psychological traits or motivational patterns are abstracted from their statistical and methodological constraints, they may be interpreted as robust explanations rather than tentative associations. This risk is heightened when constructs with strong normative or clinical connotations—such as psychopathy—are involved. Moreover, distortions can emerge at multiple stages of knowledge transmission. Even when original research is cautious and appropriately bounded, secondary interpretations in academic reviews, professional commentary, or teaching materials may inadvertently amplify certain claims while downplaying limitations. By the time findings are translated into practitioner discourse or popular literature, nuances regarding uncertainty, effect size, and scope are often lost, while the authority of "scientific evidence" is retained. This epistemic slippage underscores the need for restraint when applying psychiatric language to leadership phenomena. The issue is not merely one of inaccurate popularization, but of cumulative distortion across research, interpretation, and communication. Recognizing these transmission failures strengthens the case for conceptual discipline and cautions against treating psychologically charged labels as definitive explanations of leadership behavior. Taken together, diagnostic drift and conceptual misplacement produce a discourse that appears psychologically sophisticated while operating at a significant distance from clinical and methodological foundations. By collapsing clinical pathology, personality traits, motivational orientations, and ethical evaluation into a single diagnostic frame, leadership discourse sacrifices explanatory clarity for rhetorical force. Addressing this problem requires not the rejection of psychological insight, but a renewed commitment to conceptual discipline and epistemic humility in the interpretation and application of research findings. 4. Management Literature and the Moralization of Psychopathology The processes of diagnostic drift and conceptual misplacement become particularly visible within management and leadership literature, especially at the intersection between academic research, practitioner discourse, and popular writing. While a substantial body of leadership research approaches psychological constructs with appropriate caution and dimensional nuance, much of the broader management literature employs psychiatric terminology in a more expansive and moralized manner. In these contexts, terms such as "psychotic," "psychopathic," or "toxic" are often used without explicit clarification as to whether they are intended metaphorically, descriptively, or diagnostically. This ambiguity allows psychopathological language to function as a moral intensifier. Labeling a leader as "psychotic" does more than describe behavior; it conveys abnormality, threat, and illegitimacy, thereby transforming a contested leadership style or harmful decision into evidence of psychological deviance. As a result, psychiatric terms become tools for moral evaluation rather than instruments of psychological explanation. This moralization is particularly salient in organizational contexts marked by hierarchical power relations, where leadership decisions directly affect livelihoods, identity, and well-being. Leadership and Psychopathy 7 A further issue arises from the selective reduction of complex psychological constructs. Management discourse frequently isolates individual traits—such as lack of empathy, dominance, or strategic ruthlessness—and treats them as sufficient indicators of pathology, detached from the broader constellations and contextual moderators required for psychological interpretation. This reduction not only misrepresents the underlying psychological literature but also reinforces a binary distinction between "healthy" and "pathological" leaders that is inconsistent with empirical evidence and theoretical models emphasizing continua rather than categories. The moralization of psychopathology also carries important explanatory consequences. By attributing leadership failure primarily to individual psychological abnormality, management discourse risks obscuring the role of organizational incentives, governance structures, cultural norms, and systemic pressures. Diagnostic language thus serves as an explanatory shortcut that personalizes harm while depoliticizing the organizational conditions that enable or reward destructive behavior. In this way, the pathologization of leaders may inadvertently protect institutions from deeper scrutiny by locating dysfunction solely within individual actors. Finally, the popularization of psychiatric language in management literature encourages the diffusion of quasi-clinical judgments among lay audiences. Readers are invited to recognize "psychotic leaders" in their own organizations, often on the basis of anecdotal evidence or subjective experience. While such narratives resonate emotionally, they blur the boundary between psychological understanding and moral condemnation. The authority of psychiatric terminology lends these judgments a veneer of scientific legitimacy, even when they rest on limited evidence and unexamined assumptions. In sum, the moralization of psychopathology within management discourse exemplifies how psychiatric language can drift from its explanatory role and become a vehicle for normative judgment. Recognizing this transformation is essential for restoring conceptual clarity and for developing more responsible ways of addressing leadership dysfunction that do not rely on diagnostic caricatures. 4.1 Engaging the Case for Clinical Constructs in Leadership Research It is important to engage directly with the strongest arguments for the careful use of clinical constructs in leadership contexts. A substantial body of research has investigated the prevalence and organizational impact of psychopathic traits among corporate leaders (Babiak & Hare, 2006; Boddy, 2011, 2017; Board & Fritzon, 2005). These researchers advance sophisticated arguments concerning selection effects in corporate environments, structural incentives that may reward psychopathic traits, and documented organizational harm attributable to identified individuals. Babiak and Hare (2006) argue that corporate environments may inadvertently select for individuals with psychopathic traits because characteristics such as superficial charm, grandiosity, and willingness to manipulate can be mistaken for leadership qualities during hiring and promotion processes. Boddy (2011, 2017) has documented cases where individuals scoring high on psychopathy measures appeared to cause significant organizational dysfunction, including increased bullying, reduced employee well-being, and ethical violations. Board and Fritzon (2005) found elevated rates of certain personality disorder traits among senior business managers compared to psychiatric patients. Leadership and Psychopathy 8 These findings warrant serious consideration and should not be dismissed. However, the present analysis suggests that even this careful research is susceptible to the interpretive amplification described in Section 3. The finding that certain traits are statistically elevated in leadership populations does not establish that these traits constitute pathology in the clinical sense, nor that they are the primary explanatory factor in organizational dysfunction. Correlational findings regarding trait prevalence are frequently interpreted as if they demonstrated that psychopathy causes organizational harm, when alternative explanations— including organizational selection effects, role requirements, and systemic incentives—may account for observed patterns. Moreover, the corporate psychopathy literature faces methodological challenges that are not always acknowledged in secondary interpretations. Studies often rely on observer ratings rather than clinical assessment, use convenience samples, and may conflate subclinical trait elevation with clinical pathology. The ecological validity of laboratory-derived psychopathy measures in organizational contexts remains an open question. None of this invalidates the research, but it does counsel against the strong causal and diagnostic claims that sometimes appear in derivative discussions. The MEA framework proposed in Section 5 offers a way to account for the phenomena these researchers identify while avoiding the conceptual problems diagnosed in this paper. Rather than categorizing leaders as "psychopaths" or "non-psychopaths," the framework examines dimensional variation in motivation, excess, and awareness. A leader exhibiting the patterns described in the corporate psychopathy literature—reduced empathy, manipulative behavior, organizational harm—can be assessed along these dimensions without requiring a clinical label. This approach preserves accountability, enables targeted intervention, and maintains explanatory precision. 5. The Motivation-Excess-Awareness (MEA) Framework: A Spectrum-Based Alternative If leadership dysfunction is not adequately explained through psychopathological labeling, an alternative conceptual framework is required—one that preserves psychological insight without collapsing into diagnostic reductionism. This section proposes the MotivationExcess-Awareness (MEA) framework, a spectrum-based understanding of leadership behavior grounded in three core dimensions: motivational orientations, degrees of excess and rigidity, and levels of reflective awareness. Leadership research has long recognized the role of core human motivations such as achievement, affiliation, power, dominance, recognition, and status (McClelland, 1985; Winter, 1973). These motivations are not pathological in themselves; rather, they are fundamental drivers of behavior whose expression varies across individuals and contexts. Leadership roles, by their very nature, tend to attract and reward individuals who deviate from population averages on certain motivational dimensions. Elevated ambition, authority orientation, or influence-seeking may therefore be adaptive or even necessary within specific organizational environments. Dysfunction emerges not from the presence of particular motivations, but from their excessive, rigid, or unexamined expression. Excess refers to the disproportionate dominance of one motivational drive at the expense of others, while rigidity denotes the inability to modulate motivational expression in response to ethical considerations, contextual change, or feedback. Both excess and rigidity are exacerbated by deficits in reflective awareness—the Leadership and Psychopathy 9 capacity to observe, evaluate, and regulate one's own motivations, assumptions, and behavioral tendencies (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Sutcliffe et al., 2016). Crucially, leaders may act rationally, strategically, and intentionally while remaining insufficiently aware of the deeper motivational structures shaping their decisions. Such unreflective functioning does not imply clinical pathology. Rather, it reflects a common psychological condition in which action is guided by implicit drives that are not subject to ongoing examination. In leadership contexts, where power asymmetry and institutional reinforcement can amplify motivational tendencies, the absence of reflective awareness significantly increases the risk of harm. A spectrum-based framework allows for graded distinctions between different forms of leadership dysfunction. At one end of the spectrum lie reflective and regulated forms of leadership, characterized by motivational balance, ethical sensitivity, and adaptive selfregulation. At the other extreme may lie cases of severe personality pathology that warrant clinical consideration. However, the majority of problematic leadership behavior occupies intermediate zones within functional psychological ranges and is more appropriately addressed through developmental, ethical, and organizational interventions than through diagnostic categorization. 5.1 Operationalizing the MEA Framework While this paper is primarily conceptual, the MEA framework is designed to be operationalizable. This section provides concrete guidance for translating the framework into assessment, development, and governance practices. Assessment. The MEA framework suggests that leadership evaluation should move away from trait-based screening for putative pathology and toward dimensional profiling across three axes: (1) Motivational profile: Using established instruments such as the Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1984) or the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (Tellegen & Waller, 2008), assessors can map an individual's standing on achievement, affiliation, power, and dominance motivations. The goal is not to identify "pathological" profiles but to understand motivational emphases and potential imbalances. (2) Excess and rigidity indicators: These can be assessed through 360-degree feedback instruments that capture observers' perceptions of inflexibility, single-mindedness, and unresponsiveness to feedback. Specific items might include: "This leader adjusts their approach when circumstances change" (reverse-scored for rigidity) or "This leader pursues their goals even when significant costs to others become apparent" (excess indicator). (3) Reflective awareness: The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003) or the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (Baer et al., 2006) can assess dispositional awareness. For leadership-specific assessment, items might be adapted to focus on awareness of one's impact on others, recognition of ethical dimensions in decisions, and capacity for self-observation under pressure. Critically, these assessments are explicitly developmental rather than diagnostic. The output is a profile indicating areas for growth, not a label classifying the individual as pathological or healthy. Development. The MEA framework points toward specific intervention strategies: Leadership and Psychopathy 16 References American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). American Psychiatric Publishing. Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. Regan Books. Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45. Board, B. J., & Fritzon, K. (2005). Disordered personalities at work. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(1), 17–32. Boddy, C. R. (2011). Corporate psychopaths: Organisational destroyers. Palgrave Macmillan. Boddy, C. R. (2017). Psychopathic leadership: A case study of a corporate psychopath CEO. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 141–156. Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. Cleckley, H. (1988). The mask of sanity (5th ed.). Mosby. (Original work published 1941) Conrad, P. (2007). The medicalization of society: On the transformation of human conditions into treatable disorders. Johns Hopkins University Press. Conrad, P., & Schneider, J. W. (1992). Deviance and medicalization: From badness to sickness (Expanded ed.). Temple University Press. Edmans, A. (2024). May contain lies: How stories, statistics, and studies exploit our biases— and what we can do about it. University of California Press. Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (2nd ed.). MultiHealth Systems. Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research Form manual (3rd ed.). Research Psychologists Press. Jutel, A. (2009). Sociology of diagnosis: A preliminary review. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31(2), 278–299. Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., & Smith, S. F. (2015). Successful psychopathy: A scientific status report. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 298–303. McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Cambridge University Press. Palmen, D. G. C., Kolthoff, E. W., & Derksen, J. J. L. (2021). The need for domination in psychopathic leadership: A clarification of underlying psychological mechanisms. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 28(4), 454–466. Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21(3), 913–938. Reb, J., Narayanan, J., & Chaturvedi, S. (2014). Leading mindfully: Two studies on the influence of supervisor trait mindfulness on employee well-being and performance. Mindfulness, 5(1), 36–45. Leadership and Psychopathy 17 Rosenberg, C. E. (2002). The tyranny of diagnosis: Specific entities and individual experience. The Milbank Quarterly, 80(2), 237–260. Sutcliffe, K. M., Vogus, T. J., & Dane, E. (2016). Mindfulness in organizations: A cross-level review. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 55–81. Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (2008). Exploring personality through test construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 261–292). SAGE. Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. Free Press. Zola, I. K. (1972). Medicine as an institution of social control. The Sociological Review, 20(4), 487–504.