Public entrepreneurship and sub-clinical psychopaths: a conceptual frame and implications

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-01-2016-0011
• Published date: 08 August 2016
• Pages: 612-634
• Date: 08 August 2016
• Author: Anne Fennimore,Arthur Sementelli
• Subject Matter: Public policy & environmental management,Politics,Public adminstration & management

Public entrepreneurship and sub-

clinical psychopaths: a conceptual

frame and implications

Anne Fennimore

Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine,

Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, and

Arthur Sementelli

School of Public Administration, Florida Atlantic University,

Boca Raton, Florida, USA

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to adapt the research conducted on subclinical psychopaths in

the private sector and applies it to the public sector to build a conceptual frame for further research on

subclinical psychopaths in public organisations. General characteristics of entrepreneurs often run

counter to democratic values, and are more often aligned with private sector values. Public managers

who display one of the dark-triad personalities, i.e., psychopathy, can pose a greater threat to

democratic values and the state.

Design/methodology/approach –The approach of this paper is theoretical with the aim of

proposing a conceptual framework that utilises Downs’five types of officials governing bureaucracies,

to illustrate a relationship between public entrepreneurs and subclinical psychopaths.

Findings –The conceptual framework presented in this paper suggests that psychopathic

entrepreneurs can be identified within Downs’bureaucratic framework specifically as climbers (due to

inherent personality traits) and as zealots (heroic and altruistic behaviour for organisational causes,

yet motivated by power, domination, and self-interest). The implications of psychopathic public

managers who engage in entrepreneurial activities may be escalating public distrust, hostility, and

dissatisfaction in government.

Originality/value –This theoretical paper adds to the growing body of criticism for public

entrepreneurship by conceptualising how psychopaths, as climbers and zealots, affect public trust in

terms of accountability and democratic values.

Keywords Toxic leadership, Corporate psychopaths, Psychopathic leaders,

Public entrepreneurship, Public sector leadership

Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction

The field of public entrepreneurship has elicited a fair amount of research interest

during the past few decades. Despite many proponents, the body of literature should be

examined given its anti-traditionalist orientation and its fixation on self-promotion,

rule-breaking, power politics, risk-taking, and radical change efforts which sharply

conflicts with democratic theories (Moe, 1994; Reich, 1990; Stever, 1988; Terry, 1990,

1993). Public organisations likely to encourage entrepreneurism tend to be large,

complex, and heterogeneous such as governmental ministries. One might speculate

that this is due to volatile and uncertain internal environments inherent in complex

organisations. What, if any, are the implications of encouraging entrepreneurial

behaviour in the public sector more generally? More specifically, are there certain

public managers who would take advantage of entrepreneurial freedom or autonomy?

“It is not the public entrepreneur in general we should be concerned about; it is the

International Journal of Public

Sector Management

Vol. 29 No. 6, 2016

pp. 612-634

©Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0951-3558

DOI 10.1108/IJPSM-01-2016-0011

Received 25 January 2016

Revised 28 March 2016

17 May 2016

Accepted 18 May 2016

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3558.htm

612

IJPSM

29,6

public entrepreneur who lacks socioemotional maturity who warrants our concerns”

(Roberts and King, 1996, p. 154). Those individuals achieving entrepreneurial success

have been described as driven, focused, and typically show little regard for other’s

feelings or emotions, i.e., a lack of empathy ( Jones and Paulhus, 2009). Such individuals,

arguably, exhibit characteristics of subclinical psychopaths making their behaviour

potentially problematic for public organisations, entrusted with service provision and

the common good.

Similarities exist between entrepreneurial and subclinical psychopathic

personalities. Subclinical psychopathy is described as a combination of affective,

interpersonal, and behavioural features (Cooke et al., 2006) consisting of “superficial

charm, egocentricity, dishonesty, guiltlessness, callousness, risk-taking, poor impulse

control, fearlessness, social dominance, and immunity to anxiety”(Lilienfeld et al., 2012,

p. 490) as well as a grandiose sense of self-worth (Hare, 1991), and a lack of empathy

(Hare, 2003). They are attracted by power (Hercz, 2001), prestige, and control

(Deutschman, 2005) which results in self-interested, short-term decision making that

maximises personal wealth and power (Boddy, 2006). Subclinical psychopaths often

seek employment positions that are highly paid (rewards well) and allows for power

(leadership possibilities).

Large, complex organisations can afford subclinical psychopaths great

opportunities for rewards and power since competitive self-interest and

accountability are more difficult to monitor. Moreover, self-interested behaviour is

more likely to go undetected for longer periods of time (Williamson, 1981). Similar to the

conditions that encourage opportunistic behaviour in relation to transaction costs

(Williamson, 1979), both subclinical psychopaths and public entrepreneurs appear

drawn to similar organisational conditions, i.e., large, complex, and decentralised.

Consider Downs (1965), who emphasised how large, complex, and decentralised

organisational conditions can encourage self-interested behaviour as well as the types

of officials that emerge from them. Monitoring public managers in large organisations

is considerably more difficult than in small, centralised organisations with clear

oversight. Subclinical psychopaths navigate more complex organisations for personal

gain by using their intelligence, charm ingenuity (Hare, 1999), and charisma

(McCormick and Burch, 2005).

Consider that subclinical psychopathic leaders exist in the private sector (Babiak,

1995; Babiak and Hare, 2006; Babiak et al., 2010; Boddy, 2006, 2013c; Boddy et al., 2010;

Hare, 1991, 1999; Mathieu et al., 2013/2014), are they proportionally similar in the public

sector, and what would their effect be on public organisations? Regardless of how they

present themselves, they remain largely self-interested and lack regard for the feelings

of subordinates. Subclinical psychopathic public managers who engage in

entrepreneurial activities have the potential to compromise institutionalized public

values such as democracy, accountability, representativeness, and serving public

needs. Self-interested public managers seeking to benefit themselves can be understood

as “climbers”(Downs, 1965). Climbers, seek promotions to increase their status by

overvaluing their input. Subclinical psychopaths, too, are motivated by power, income,

and prestige (p. 441). Both are attracted to rapidly growing and large organisations due

to a higher likelihood of fast promotion.

The similarities continue. Entrepreneurs, like “climbers”, tend to speed up the

growth rate of organisations in terms of innovations, aligning with Downs’s (1965)

assertion that organisations value growth because it “attracts and retains

ambitious and competent personnel”(p. 446). Based on the evident behaviour of

613

Conceptual

frame and

implications