Ethics of Employment Screening for Psychopathy

Regular price €97.99
Quantity:
In stock with our UK publisher. 14-28 days
Delivery/Collection within 10-20 working days
14 days return policy Shipping & Delivery
A01=Brian K. Steverson
ADA medical testing
Age Group_Uncategorized
Age Group_Uncategorized
Author_Brian K. Steverson
automatic-update
business ethics
Category1=Non-Fiction
Category=HPQ
Category=HPS
Category=JMP
Category=QDTQ
Category=QDTS
COP=United States
corporate psychopaths
Delivery_Delivery within 10-20 working days
employment equal opportunity
employment ethics
eq_bestseller
eq_isMigrated=2
eq_nobargain
eq_non-fiction
eq_society-politics
Language_English
PA=Available
Price_€50 to €100
PS=Active
softlaunch
workplace privacy
workplace psychopaths

Product details

  • ISBN 9781793616821
  • Weight: 395g
  • Dimensions: 161 x 228mm
  • Publication Date: 14 Oct 2020
  • Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
  • Publication City/Country: US
  • Product Form: Hardback
  • Language: English
Secure checkout Fast Shipping Easy returns
In 2006, Babiak and Hare alerted the public to the danger of “corporate psychopaths,” psychopathic individuals occupying positions of power in business organizations. Since then, academicians and the public media have advertised their presence, documented the harm they can cause, and issued a call to arms to identify corporate psychopaths and eliminate their presence in the workplace. Very little attention has been paid, however, to the ethics of such a “seek and destroy” mission. The Ethics of Employment Screening for Psychopathy argues that employment screening for psychopathy would be illegal and unethical. On legal grounds, Brian K Steverson argues that psychopathy would qualify as a protected disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and, hence, medical screening to identify potential corporate psychopaths would be in violation of the ADA. On ethical grounds, the case is made that such screening would violate a social commitment to equal opportunity, would constitute a morally unjustified violation of personal privacy, and would, in practice, not produce the intended benefits, while at the same time inflicting harm on the subjects of the screening.
Brian K. Steverson is John L. Aram Chair in Business Ethics in the School of Business Administration at Gonzaga University.

More from this author