What is a psychopathic leader in the Filipino workplace?

In today’s era of heightened awareness surrounding workplace well-being and mental health, tales about toxic managers and leaders have become widespread. Employees are turning to social media forums and platforms, where countless skits and articles on “how to deal with your toxic boss?” or “what to do when your boss is a bully?” can be found. Adding to this important discourse, recent literature has given the toxic boss another label: the “Psychopathic leader.” In this article, we will contextualize the traits and behaviors associated with psychopathic leadership and explore the importance of gender and employee perceptions in this phenomenon.

Psychopathy is a common term in Clinical Psychology, often used in the context of high-profile criminal cases and popularized by film personalities like Amy Dunne from Gone Girl and Patrick Bateman from American Psycho. However, recent studies have explored psychopathy among non-institutionalized individuals, particularly leaders in the workplace. According to the review of related literature, psychopathic leadership involves a dark triad consisting of Machiavellianism, or the tendency of an individual to manipulate and exploit others; narcissism, or 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.

Recently, Dr. Erald Ilac and Dr. Toni Mactal from 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 who reported 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 reveals 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 the topic of 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 the 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, thereby putting female leaders in a precarious situation, teetering the line 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 amidst 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.