IN this age of heightened awareness of well-being and mental health in the workplace, stories about toxic managers and leaders have become widespread. Employees are turning to social media forums and platforms, where discussions abound on “how to deal with your toxic boss?” or “what to do when your boss is a bully?”
These days, the toxic boss has also been tagged as a “psychopathic leader.”
Psychopathy is a clinical psychology term often used in high-profile criminal cases and popularized by Amy Dunne in the movie “Gone Girl” and Patrick Bateman in “American Psycho.”
However, studies have also explored psychopathy among non-institutionalized individuals, particularly leaders in the workplace. According to related literature, psychopathic leadership involves a dark triad consisting of Machiavellianism, or the tendency of an individual to manipulate and exploit others; narcissism, the sense of entitlement, grandiosity and dominance; and psychopathy as demonstrated by impulsivity, thrill-seeking, and absence of conscience and guilt. Together, these traits manifest in various toxic leadership behaviors that contribute to increased psychological distress, high turnover intentions, and reduced job and life satisfaction among employees.
Research
Recently, Erald Ilac and Toni Mactal of the Ateneo Center for Organization Research and Development (CORD) conducted a study to deepen the understanding of psychopathic leadership in the Philippine context. Their research involved 319 Filipino employees from various organizations on their perceptions and experiences of their direct supervisors’ behaviors. By highlighting culture and gender, the researchers aimed to unveil the nuances behind Filipino employee experiences of psychopathic leadership.
One key finding from the study is how employees need to experience overt manifestations of their leaders’ psychopathic personality — such as bullying, harassment, explicit manipulation and fraud — before these impact their mental health and job satisfaction. This points to the complex dualistic nature of psychopathic leadership in that it includes both destructive and superficially positive behaviors.
For instance, leaders who exhibit psychopathic tendencies may possess charismatic traits and excellent communication styles, which can mask their toxic qualities and make them appear admirable to their subordinates, at least initially. In other words, subtle psychopathic traits might go unnoticed or be dismissed by employees when observed in conjunction with more socially desirable characteristics. Thus, employee perceptions play a significant role in determining the good, the bad and the ugly when it comes to psychopathic leadership.
On gender, the findings revealed a striking contrast in the way female and male psychopathic leaders are construed in the workplace. The relationship between psychopathic traits and toxic leadership behaviors was stronger among female leaders. Additionally, employees perceived their women leaders, regardless of industry, as more toxic than their male counterparts.
This disparity may be due to societal and cultural expectations in the Philippines, which remain predominantly masculine and collectivist. Filipino cultural norms dictate that females must adopt warm and nurturing qualities, putting female leaders in a precarious situation teetering between being a strong, competent leader and a nurturing mother figure.
As Filipino women leaders attempt to break gender norms and climb the corporate ladder, they may find it necessary to employ traits and behaviors typical of male leaders. However, in the process, these female leaders put themselves at risk of being judged more harshly for their agentic behaviors that defy both cultural and gender norms.
It is also important to note that the data for this study was gathered during the pandemic, which may have set the stage for leaders to adapt to the ambiguity of the situation, hyper-focus on productivity, and enforce big changes in their respective organizations.
For instance, participants described their female leaders as more self-promoting, more authoritarian, more abusive in their supervision and more unpredictable. The pressures of keeping companies afloat amid a global pandemic, coupled with Filipino gender norms, may have put female leaders in a much harsher light as they became stricter with their employees working from home.
Ultimately, these findings show the complex interplay between psychopathy, gender and cultural expectations in the workplace. While it may be easy and tempting to label your toxic leader as a “psychopath,” the insights on psychopathic leadership reveal that employees must exercise caution and evaluate their experiences in light of contextual, cultural and societal factors.
Nevertheless, there is a call for organizations to monitor and evaluate their leaders, develop inclusive and culturally sensitive approaches to leadership development, and promote practices that enhance well-being for all of their employees.
Christina Marie Ysabel O. Cruz completed her Bachelor of Science in Psychology (cum laude) with a minor in Development Management from the Ateneo de Manila University, where she also obtained her Master’s in Counseling Psychology. She is the program officer for research and development at Ateneo CORD. Her interests include workplace well-being, burnout, compassion fatigue, trauma and anxiety, among others. Email her at
Be the first to comment