Identifying Toxic Personality Traits

Learning how to identify toxic leadership styles can improve your enjoyment of online games.

I would like to preface this by saying that there are no "good" or "bad" leadership styles or personality traits. As someone who works in a field closely related to psychology, we tend to think of things in clinical terms; is a behavior adaptive, or maladaptive? Is it functional, or dysfunctional? Does it cause distress and disability, or not? From the perspective of evolutionary psychology, many things we don't like about other people - arrogance, deceitfulness, manipulativeness - can nevertheless be adaptive in certain situations. It's best to think in terms of competing strategies, each of which has it's time and place, which exist on a spectrum of being adaptive (healthy) and maladaptive (pathological). Things can also be analyzed on a group level or an individual level; a behavior might be adaptive for the individual, but harmful for the group, and vice versa. In this article, I hope to provide readers with information that they can use to find the right play environment for themselves.

As a clinical therapist, I am fascinated by the social aspects of online gaming. The internet provides an anonymous or semi-anonymous low-consequence environment where people are free to act as disinhibited agents, a phenomenon known as The Online Disinhibition Effect. ODE has been a focus of increasing research, particularly among socially withdrawn youth and adults who report that it's easier interact online than in person. There are many reasons a person may be socially withdrawn. One reason is social anxiety, and research has found evidence that interacting via the internet reduces feelings of anxiety. Another reason is anti-social personality traits, in particular low impulse control, emotional reactivity, and fragile or reactive self-esteem. While socially anxious individuals withdraw because they fear the possibility of rejection and negative appraisal, persons with these anti-social traits socially withdraw because of actual rejection and negative appraisal.

Note: having anti-social personality traits is not the same as having anti-social personality disorder. Current thinking in psychology points to most things existing on a spectrum; that is, we all have anti-social personality traits, some more so than others, and the delineation between "normal" and "pathological" is no longer as clear as it once was, taking into account a multitude of contextual factors involving cultural norms as well as individual distress and disability. In other words: it's not a problem unless it's a problem..

Of all the online games, EVE Online has proven to be the best place place to study the human condition. With very few official rules regarding gameplay and player interactions, almost anything goes - almost. People with anti-social or toxic personality traits have a low attrition rate in EVE compared to more popular games like WoW or Final Fantasy XIV, where players can have their accounts actioned simply for being rude. But as we all know by now, EVE online isn't that handholdy.

We've all seen the videos of FCs raging on YouTube. It's often funny from an outsider perspective. I knew it was a thing that existed in EVE, but it was not something that I'd experienced in a particularly salient way. Sure; I've been in groups which contained toxic people, but I never played with them very much. I've been in fleets when an FC got mad, or had to tell people to shut up and clear comms. That's not a problem, as these are usually transient events in the grand scheme of things. Most of the FCs I've flown with have been either very chill, or very entertaining. I'd never encountered an actual ragemonster - someone who just seemed addicted to being angry - until my last corp.

Things started off okay. But over time I began to notice a certain irritable sensitivity in our FC. During our structure bashes we were told to call out jams. But every time one of our logi called out jams, the FC responded with a huff and a sigh: "It's fiiiinnnne you're gonna get jammed, just get the cap chain back up when you can." As the week went on, he was becoming increasingly snippy, over increasingly trivial matters. People were starting to complain when he wasn't around. Our fleets, which had been chatty and fun, were becoming quieter. 

Below are two brief interactions that I had with the FC the night I dropped corp. I've left the situational details out, as they're not particularly relevant. Of interest here are the personality dynamics. My statements are the ones without quotes:

• "Why the FUCK are you warping?"
• Excuse me? 
• "Why are you warping off?!" 
• I'm just breaking his jams so I can land a few rep cycles on the Nestor.
• "Get your ass back here NOW, I did NOT give you permission to warp off! If you're gonna do that shit you might as well just drop fleet and get the fuck out of my corp. You do NOT warp off as logi when someone's getting shot." 
• How can I rep if I'm jammed? 
• "It doesn't matter, you fucked up the cap chain." 
• How am I transferring cap if I'm jammed? 
• "Just shut the fuck up and do what you're told."

Later, as the fleet was standing down:

• "Sorry about going off like that."
• Hey don't worry about it. Just try to relax a bit. Stuff like that will make people not want to come on fleets.
• "You know what?? I don't give a FUCK if you don't want to come on my fleets. I don't need logi putting people at risk by warping off when they should be repping and fucking up the cap chain."
• I was jammed. That doesn't make any sense.
• "You know what does make sense is you can get the FUCK OUT OF MY CORP."

Yikes! Online disinhibition + some maladjustment issues = toxic, hostile leadership. I could not dock up and drop corp fast enough. Notice the prolific use of "I" statements. There is no "we" here. For this FC, the group is simply an extension of his volition. He wasn't so much concerned about a fleetmate dying as he was about how it would look to suffer a loss to an enemy. You'll also notice how very mild corrective feedback was met with a reflexive and automatic hostile response: he has no need of anyone who would disagree with him or criticize him in any way. It may seem like he's acting in a decisive and confident manner, but in reality this response is born of defensiveness and narcissistic fragility: he can't handle criticism, so he just makes people who criticize him unwelcome.

See if you can identify some of the of toxic leadership on display in the vignette:

• Arrogance: Arrogant and egotistical leaders are not open to constructive criticism or feedback. They interpret anything less than praise as a personal challenge, and respond with reflexive and automatic hostility. Egotistical leaders are self-centered and put themselves before the group, only helping the group as it serves their own ends. They cannot handle being wrong, dismiss disconfirming or contrary opinions, and behave in a punishing or threatening way towards subordinates who "step out of line".
• Irritability: Under toxic and irritable leadership, organizations become stultified and individuals do not feel free to act with agency or to try innovative approaches to problems. Autonomy and independent thought are discouraged or outright punished. The group becomes an extension of the toxic leader's personality and will.
• Authoritarian: "My way or the highway." Authoritarian approaches have their time and place, but in general research has shown that authoritarian leadership is less effective in the long-term than more egalitarian leadership styles. Authoritarian leadership styles promote distrust, rebellion, reduce individual identification with the group, increase turnover rate, and slow innovation. In short: authoritarian leadership styles have a chilling effect, leading to stagnation under a harsh status quo.
• Blame: Toxic leaders take all the credit, and pass all the blame to subordinates. If things go well, it's because of the leader's efficacy. If things do not go well, it's because subordinates didn't do their jobs properly.

Despite all these negatives, many authoritarian structures still exist, and seem successful. Why? One reason is social capital and efficacy: some toxic leaders are charismatic and, frankly, get things done (at least in the short term). Due to efficacy they tend to build up a certain respect, especially since they grab the credit for themselves. Authoritarian leadership also appeals to people with low self-efficacy. It's a chicken-and-egg problem: are low efficacy people drawn to authoritarian leaders, or do authoritarian leaders promote low efficacy in their followers?

The Achilles heel of authoritarian leadership is that subordinates are willing to stick around only insofar as the group is doing well and the benefits outweigh the cost of dealing with a toxic environment. Subordinates in authoritarian regimes do not have high levels of trust towards leadership. As soon as the benefits no longer outweigh the costs, subordinates leave - or they rebel and attempt to usurp leadership positions. This is why authoritarian institutions are unstable and tend to collapse suddenly and are prone to coups: nobody likes an authoritarian - not even other authoritarians - and as soon as a better option presents itself, it's seized upon.

I want to outline the better option for people who are currently looking for a corporation in EVE. Here's some traits of healthy leadership:

• Humility: Benevolent leaders demonstrate humility; they see themselves as part of the group, and display high levels of group loyalty. They want the group to succeed, even at personal cost. They have an egalitarian leadership style and take personal interest in the group's wellbeing. This promotes high levels of trust and loyalty amongst members. Leaders who lead from a place of humility view themselves as servants to the group. Thomas Jefferson called these leaders "citizen servants".
• Stability: Healthy leaders are the rock that the group can depend on. No matter how bad things get, they maintain a positive, optimistic outlook. Even during failures, healthy leaders do what they can to maintain group cohesion and look for new opportunities. They are approachable and don't make members feel like they have to walk on eggshells.
• Egalitarian: Because they have high levels of humility, healthy leaders realize that they don't know everything will not always make the correct choices. They are open to others taking the initiative and innovating. They are open to corrective and disconfirming feedback. They are more willing to share power with others, fostering leadership qualities in their members. This improves group morale and slows leadership burnout.
• Credit: Leaders with high levels of humility and a positive orientation towards the group are almost allergic to praise. Instead, they take personal responsibility for failures and ask themselves "what could I have done differently?" Jocko Willink refers to this as "extreme ownership" (see also, here.) Positive leaders are liberal with their praise, giving credit to group members for their positive contributions.

Groups with healthy leadership tend to be fun environments where players don't feel like they're "walking on eggshells". Members feel free to take the initiative, innovate, and come up with their own solutions to problems, promoting a sense of self-efficacy. This leadership style promotes group loyalty, trust, and longevity. It's of interest to note that some autocracies in EVE are successful in the long-term, and this seems to be because they buffer their membership and the Supreme Soviet with egalitarian leaders. The Big Boss is a dick, but your immediate manager is a pretty nice guy.

Of course, these traits exist on a continuum. No leader is "purely" toxic or healthy, and no one behaves in a stereotyped manner. Even toxic leaders have their shining moments, and healthy leaders their bad days.

Finding Positive Leadership Environments

If you're cognizant of these leadership styles and are looking for a more positive environment, here are some things to watch for when you're deciding whether or not the corporation you're in is a good fit for you. I always recommend an initial low investment period when joining a new corporation. Keep a low profile and just observe what happens. Don't jump all your stuff out on day one. Bring just enough ships to have fun, so you don't have to go through the pain of logistics again.

• Criticism: How does leadership respond to criticism? Do they take it personally and argue? Do they say things like "if you don't like it get the fuck out of my corp"? Is leadership willing to apologize when they've been rude, and accept corrective feedback on that sort of behavior?
• Mistakes: How are mistakes and failures taken? Is leadership's first response to blame someone? Do they get angry and yell at people? Or does leadership instead calmly look for solutions and provide instruction?
• Frame: In what terms does leadership speak? Do they speak in terms of "we" or in terms of "I"? "We need people in Guardians." vs "I need more Guardian pilots in fleet."
• Accommodation: How accommodating is leadership towards the fact that you have a life outside the game? Do they have participation requirements? While not necessarily a problem, participation requirements can be a red flag: over time, authoritarian and toxic leadership styles lead to lower participation levels. Participation requirements could be a way that leadership is compensating for this (in an authoritarian way, not surprisingly).
• Rules: Every group has rules, both unspoken and official. Authoritarians tend to make rules frivolously. Healthy leadership has the minimum necessary amount of rules. How imposing are the rules of the group? What restrictions will membership in the group impose upon your playstyle?
• Credit: Pay attention to what leadership says. Do they praise group members? Do they tell people when they did a good job or had a good idea?

Leadership are the figures that membership rallies around. They have a huge influence on the culture of the group, setting precedents for what's considered acceptable behavior and what isn't. Toxic leaders promote toxic environments. While I am always a proponent of building resilience, there is a fine line between having a thick skin and putting up with abuse. Hopefully this guide will help you know what to look for as you search for a home in New Eden.