A once in a while beating of Rodney King, or wiping out tens of thousands of people out of their retirement?
I can totally understand an isolated ass beating (not that it’s good), but the latter is pure evil. You’ve got to be a cold SOB to skim a billion and not really care who it affects. It deserves corporal punishment IMO.
…
As for the question at hand. I say, once a company goes public, it’s public. I wouldn’t think it would be too hard for the SEC to find a way to include screenings for CE (and F) O’s. Maybe not a psycological exam, but a complete history of their current net worth, and just where it came from (I doubt most CEO’s are broke when they start). Unless it’s a lot to ask of someone about to manage billions a year.
The dirty secret is that you have to be a sociopath to be that successful in business. We worship the Type A Sociopath Cult Of Personality. Normal people don’t push people the way they do.
Nope nope. Here to debate the ideas, not the people.
Usually I wouldn’t use “screw you” but I wanted to affect the same amount of indignity as any popularly disliked discrimination would be met with. There just aren’t terribly many people who stick up for the fat, white, rich guy out playing golf and smoking cigars. But indeed, they are people too and probably the response of those to this idea would be, “Screw you.”
That I am aware, getting auditted is one of the requirements to go public, and public companies continue to be auditted regularly. I may be wrong.
But of course, the auditors are at the mercy of the data and numbers they receive. There’s really not much more anyone can do about that except for inserting a full-time spy to count boxes.
Yes, auditing is a requirement, and auditors catch problems all the time. I’d like to see some statistics of the % of CEOs who have embezzled money from their companies. If it’s greater than, say, 2%, I’ll happily endorse “psychological testing”. Assuming, of course, that there is scientific evidence that “psychological testing” can screen out future embezzlers.
Given the effectiveness of these so-called psychopaths at generating huge amounts of short-term profits, who’s to say the shareholders wouldn’t prefer to have a cold-blooded madman at the helm?
Teachers are screened for shot records, criminal records, appropriate degrees. But psychological disorders? Not as a matter of rote. Teachers accussed of egregiously criminal sexual or disciplinary behavior are often forced to undergo counseling.
Also, wouldn’t sociopaths be more likely than psychopaths in the corporate arena?
I have no problem with a corporation requring a psychological evaluation for CEOs but would be somewhat wary of federal or even state laws requiring it.
It does seem unfair that way, but one crime is violent in nature, the other isn’t…and no corporal punsihment will ever be administered to a thief, no matter how much he/she has stolen, and from who. At most I can see, would be the immediate seizure of the thief’s assets, and jail time proportional to the amount proven to be stolen/skimmed from the investors.
Plenty of interview questions are designed to root out certain tendencies and behaviors. Its not a matter of subjecting them to a full psych eveluation its more a matter of training HR people how to ask the right questions and create employment contracts that punish this type of behavior mercilessly. I am not a heavy finance guru but companies could just as easily require these types of staff to post bonds or carry some kind of liability insurance protecting the company/shareholders from financial ruin by a CEO looting the company. Maybe part of going public could involve some portion of a CEO’s income being routed through a delayed payment escrow account of some kind to help offset this type of problem. Loot the company, sacrifice the escrow account.
I say, yes indeed, screen away! And when you find the psychopath, promote him and give him a bonus. We want people leading who are not “normal”, “average”, or “run of the mill”. How do you think they got to be in charge in the first place? They’re special, in a multitude of ways. If that translates to being a psychopath in some academics study, then pity the poor academic.
Criminal behavior is criminal behavior. Whether it occurs in the boardroom or on the street corner.
Mr. Hare, IMHO, rather than observing the traits of the CEO class, documenting them, and pronouncing, “This is what makes a successful business leader!”, has instead applied his patented Psychopathy Checklist ™, which, by the way, has a built in judgemental conclusion (psychopath bad, must be fixed). I suspect he could apply the same checklist to many successful: Professional Sports Coaches, Military Leaders, Religious Leaders, Elected Officials, Film Directors, Ships Captains, Indian Chiefs, (need I go on?) and reach the same conclusions.
Mr. Hare is missing the obvious opportunity to pen a bestselling business book titled “Ten Traits of a Great CEO!”.