There are studies that have shown that CEOs are more likely to be psychopaths than the general population. If you assume being a psychopath also makes you an asshole, and some level of success is required in order to become a CEO, it wouldn't be unreasonable to claim that being an asshole makes you more successful.
That really is an atrocious article; they compared numbers which are loosely correlated at best:
>"The study of 261 senior professionals in the United States found that 21 per cent had clinically significant levels of psychopathic traits. The rate of psychopathy in the general population is about one in a hundred."
They should have applied the same standard to both groups, but instead used a very loose definition for the professionals, and a very stringent definition for the general population.
"The Psychopath Test" is a great book on this subject, and recommended reading on it; all these popular blog posts are just meaningless polemical drivel.[1]
I can't speak to the methodology of the study in the article, but it appears that the author of The Psychopath Test found that the rate was 4x the general population[1], so I feel like the argument still stands
If you're not going to read the entire book, please at least read more of the Wikipedia article.
>He considers the book a cautionary tale against diagnosing someone without really knowing them, and about the need to avoid confirmation bias. He thinks that is "part of the reason why there are so many miscarriages of justice in the psychopath-spotting field." He does believe that Hare's construct of psychopathy applies to some people, and that their victims deserve sympathy, but is concerned about the "alarming world of globe-trotting experts, forensic psychologists, criminal profilers, traveling the planet armed with nothing much more than a Certificate of Attendance, just like the one I had.
I've placed a hold with my local library to check it out.
Until I have a chance to read it, that appears to be an argument against attempting to diagnose an individual without significant psychiatric observation, which is a noble goal. But assuming the citation of the book in the article is correct, then there appears to be a link between psychopathy and being a CEO. Is your contention that this finding is incorrect or that we need to be careful in how we interpret the finding?
It is possible that there is some connection between being a psychopath and being a CEO, but I have no good evidence of it, and it is also possible that being CEO of a large company increases anti-social behavior patterns (as a lot of people are out to get you). The interesting question is whether psychopaths are more likely to become CEOs. Your second link didn't seem to appreciate the main message that Ronson described in his book; they just made passing mention of it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/1-in-5-ceos-are-p...