The Super Manipulators
When people commit vicious misdeeds that cause extreme suffering, the cause can spring from an unlikely source: a desire to conceal incompetence.
Bernie Madoff was a self-made finance whiz, whose star rose so high he was appointed the chairman of the NASDAQ, and pulled down $100 million per year in income from his brokerage — legitimately. Elizabeth Holmes was an engineering student who spoke Mandarin for fun and dropped out of Stanford as a freshman to launch Theranos, a unicorn medical device startup. Super Manipulators like Madoff and Holmes come from backgrounds that suggest accomplishment and fulfilled lives, not the villainy they perpetrated. So where do they go wrong?
The culprit isn’t greed, as the media likes to portray, an easy out for a lazy reporter. Stealing when you are highly talented is like marrying for money if you’re already rich. It makes little sense. What lies beneath the surface is a personality driven by unhealthy levels of ambition and determination to overcome any challenges that block their path.
Many of us find we are not the superstars we think (or we are told) as we grow up. The high school football quarterback or the debate champ suddenly discover in college they are also-rans. Functional types recalculate the odds. After a period of self-examination, they get back on a not-so-fast track. But Super Manipulators are not like the rest of us, to paraphrase Fitzgerald’s line about the rich.
They are different.
Super Manipulators have extraordinary ambition but not quite extraordinary talent. They lack the patience necessary to overcome failure. Before the world discovers they are imposters, they cover the gambit with a cloak and dagger kind of ruthlessness. Madoff sits like the Wizard of Oz in an undisclosed office where the Ponzi is hidden from prying eyes under the cover of a secret hedge model. Holmes plays a bait and switch game by replacing her device with one that actually works in an attempt to game the science. Super Manipulators find their true calling is concealing misdeeds because they’ve been concealing some kind of inferiority all their lives. If they happen to be in power by this time, only Shakespeare could write a more convincing tragedy.
The challenge is that some attributes can be true of leaders who aren’t super manipulators. Abraham Lincoln was as cagey as they come if a dope got in the way (just read his letter to General George McLellan), or Nelson Mandela’s posturing violent consequences to encourage South African President de Klerk to join forces.
But there is a perceptible difference between the machinations of manipulators and the chess moves of true leaders. One cares only about the transaction, winning for the sake of winning and self-glorification. The other possesses qualities that rise above transactions. Even a Warren Buffett can be ruthless when necessary, but never for the sake of gaming the scoreboard. Leaders like Buffett focus on building something that changes outcomes — they care about what they leave behind, not just what they conquer.
The problem is how to tell them apart. Because perps share similar skills as genuine stars (up to a point), the average employee working for a super manipulator or even expert like the SEC charged with investigating someone like Bernie Madoff can easily get taken for a ride. When we look back at these instances, most of the moral outrage is at those who ‘missed the signal’ but that would happen to the rest of us in their place. For example, someone as capable as Theranos board member and former Secretary of State George Schultz rebuked his grandson for doubting Holmes — at a time the grandson worked in the lab! If you don’t believe your grandson, we can assume it isn’t a simple thing to doubt a super manipulator.
Society takes some of the blame. The belief that innovation always breeds success (99% of the time it produces failure) sets up the con, just like Madoff’s mathematically improbable returns or Holmes’ testing that smart scientists claimed had to be contrived. Even when they fail, society encourages them to keep at it, and the effect on super manipulators, unfortunately, is to convince them that a solution is a little bit further out on the risk curve. One more trial for Holmes and one more good quarter for Madoff is all it will take.
That’s when the long spiral towards infamy and the trail of ruined lives follows. It is why it is necessary to pull aside anyone of consequence in an organization to be certain that attributes are consistent with values. Don’t assume rockstar talent means everything is okay. It could mean anything goes, including criminal behavior. You can spot would-be manipulators in the way they reveal vain ambition, signs of wanting to be treated like royalty, or in how they can be dismissive of co-workers. These are “tells” and should be observed to see if they are harmless signs of immaturity that will be outgrown or do they spell trouble. It is up to responsible people inside the organization to make the call. When Holmes began dressing like Steve Jobs, her board failed to ask why, a simple enough request. By the time they got around to it, she expected to be indulged as if she were Jobs, and if when challenged, she would demonize.
Usually, the way to flush out a super manipulator is to assign them to a small team on the way up and see how they manage with co-workers. There will be a sign that a super manipulator can’t conceal that relates to ego or self-importance. Remediable action can be taken while a disaster is preventable. As Jack Welch would say, you can either fix it or kill it.
