d59KNYm

Enemy at the Gates
245
the management committee should keep close tabs on all candidates,
take every opportunity to interact with them personally, and solicit
information from those who are in the best position to provide candid
data. These sources include supervisors, especially those handling
special projects and international assignments, and subordinates who
have experienced the high-potential candidate firsthand. It is always
possible that some misinformation will be included in even the most
well-prepared plans, but by increasing the number of sources and
balancing their perceptions, any perceived discrepancies should raise
a red flag and prompt further review and validation.
Second, companies should avoid identifying for grooming only
one person per position. This approach, called “crown prince/
princess” by experts, almost guarantees that once chosen, a candidate,
psychopathic or not, will be given the higher-level job in time,
without the added security of internal comparison. To avoid this,
several candidates are identified for each important position (referred
to as a talent pool), and no one person is guaranteed the promotion.
A third approach would be additional psychological assessments,
including interviews and written tests designed to measure personality
traits. Because of the special knowledge required to do this, companies
often outsource it. It is important that the psychological
assessment be considered just one source of data in the list of criteria
used by the company to make its decision. In the end, it is the performance
and observed behavior of the candidates that should be the
deciding factors.
Guess What? Some People Lie
Personnel managers and psychologists rely heavily on selfreport
psychological tests or instruments in which the individual
responds to a set of questions or items about his or her personality,
attitudes, and habits: “I am a truthful person,” “I like to take
chances,” “I care about the welfare of others.” Although most of