Controlled and Self-Induced Psychoses: A Case for Volatility in the Corporate Environment and Its Effectiveness Over Rationalized Withdrawal
First published: 13.03.2025
Leading author: William Parvet
In leadership and decision-making, the interplay between volatility and withdrawal plays a crucial role in determining an individual's ability to respond to challenges. These two distinct subtraits of Neuroticism, often perceived as negative, can in fact shape the effectiveness of a leader depending on the external environment. Volatility, associated with emotional intensity, risk-taking, and action, contrasts with withdrawal, which leans toward caution, inaction, and passive adaptation. This article explores the psychoanalytic, neurochemical, and practical implications of these traits in leadership, religion, and crisis management. Through analyzing Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs) and real-world leadership examples, we argue that controlled volatility is a critical asset in navigating unpredictable environments, while withdrawal proves functional only in structured and stable conditions.
Much like Nietzsche’s Übermensch, who embodied self-generated values, many HR professionals are in a constant search for the ideal leader or manager at various levels of the company. Years of psychometric analyses and observational studies have revealed an intriguing phenomenon: the strategic application of volatility as a controlled form of psychosis—an approach that aligns with theories of adaptive performance and the VUCA (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity) framework (Pulakos et al., 2000; Bennett & Lemoine, 2014).
The Dual Nature of Neuroticism
From a scientific and psychometric perspective, Neuroticism consists of two fundamentally distinct attributes: volatilityand withdrawal. These dimensions differ markedly in their expression and effects. From a psychoanalytic standpoint, they align with two classical diagnostic categories—psychosis and neurosis (Freud, 1924). In psychometric terms, volatility is linked to traits associated with psychotic tendencies, such as impulsivity and emotional instability (DeYoung, 2015), whereas withdrawal correlates more with classical neuroticism, manifesting in avoidance behaviors and heightened sensitivity to negative stimuli (Widiger, 2017).
Principal Psychoanalytical Differences
When volatility is understood as psychosis, its defining characteristic is externalization — a failure of repression. From a psychoanalytic perspective, Freud (1924) suggested that in psychosis, the ego fails to repress unconscious material, leading to unfiltered expressions of emotion and distorted reality perception. This aligns with the notion that in highly volatile individuals, the id overrides the ego, resulting in impulsivity and unpredictable behavior (Freud, 1923; Lacan, 1977).
In contrast, withdrawal as neurosis represents a conflict between the ego and the unconscious. Here, emotions are successfully repressed, manifesting in anxiety, social withdrawal, or obsessive behaviors (Freud, 1894; Klein, 1948). In this framework, the superego dominates the ego, enforcing repression and forcing the individual into a rigid, avoidance-based response to internal conflicts (Freud, 1923; Winnicott, 1965).
Principal Neurochemical Differences
Volatility is associated with an overactive limbic system, particularly amygdala hyperactivity, and reduced impulse control due to prefrontal cortex dysregulation. Individuals exhibiting high volatility often display increased emotional instability and difficulty controlling emotional impulses, leading to outward expressions of negative affect (DeYoung et al., 2005; DeYoung, 2010). Additionally, these individuals tend to have heightened sensitivity to dopamine, resulting in more robust motivational circuits and a predisposition toward reward-seeking behaviors (DeYoung, 2013).
In contrast, withdrawal is more strongly linked to serotonin deficiency, heightened threat detection in the amygdala, and reduced activity in the brain's reward systems. This neurochemical profile contributes to behaviors characterized by avoidance, anxiety, and rumination, reflecting a tendency to internalize negative emotions (DeYoung et al., 2005; DeYoung, 2010).
These neurochemical distinctions underscore the fundamentally different natures of the two subtraits, highlighting their unique contributions to the broader personality domain of neuroticism.
Positive and Negative Correlations
In psychometric analyses, it is essential to avoid "loaded" categories; that is, traits should not carry significant positive or negative emotional connotations to ensure accurate assessments. However, when evaluating effective leadership, especially in unstable and unpredictable market environments, certain traits have been scientifically linked to effectiveness.
Setting aside Openness to Experience — which encompasses high general mental ability, creativity, and openness to ideas, and is a prerequisite for solving complex problems — we observe distinct correlations between specific traits and leadership effectiveness:
Volatility: This subtrait often correlates with low Orderliness, high Assertiveness, and, to a lesser extent, low Politeness. Individuals exhibiting these characteristics may display a higher tolerance for uncertainty and a propensity for decisive action, traits beneficial in volatile environments.
Withdrawal: Conversely, this subtrait is associated with high Politeness and Compassion, low Assertiveness, and higher Orderliness. Such individuals may be more risk-averse and inclined toward maintaining harmony, which can be less advantageous in rapidly changing situations.
Consequently, in managing teams or companies within volatile and unstable environments, traits linked to Volatility — such as low Orderliness and high Assertiveness — may be more conducive to success than those associated with Withdrawal.
The Principal Problem of Withdrawal
Withdrawal presents a fundamental challenge in leadership, particularly in volatile and unpredictable environments.Leaders exhibiting high withdrawal tendencies often take minimal action when confronted with uncertainty, sudden changes, or external disruptions. This reduced responsiveness can hinder an organization's ability to adapt and thrive in dynamic contexts.
In contrast, leaders with low withdrawal and high volatility are more likely to take decisive and impactful actions. While this does not guarantee success, their propensity for significant and disruptive decisions equips organizations to respond more effectively to external transformations.
High withdrawal traits may render a leader congenial in stable conditions, fostering a harmonious environment focused on the present. However, such leadership proves functional only when external circumstances provide sufficient structure and order, aligning with the leader's internal disposition. When external environments descend into chaos—such as during personal losses, health crises, or other significant challenges — leaders with high withdrawal tendencies may struggle to take decisive action or support others effectively.
This perspective aligns with Contingency Theory, which posits that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to leadership; instead, effective leadership depends on the alignment between a leader's traits and the specific situational demands .
The Link Between Volatility and Withdrawal to Religion and Responsibility
Individuals with high Volatility often experience heightened emotional responses and reduced impulse control, leading to a lack of intrinsic order. To compensate, they may seek external structures that provide stability. When such individuals possess high Openness to Ideas and Orderliness they might gravitate toward seeking for rational self-coerrection from monotheistic, dogmatic, and restrictive religions. This choice represents a high-level coping strategy, where self-imposed restrictions are freely chosen, reflecting a belief in free will and personal responsibility. For example, they may interpret religious teachings like the Sermon on the Mount as guiding principles for leading a meaningful life aligned with a higher purpose, thereby fostering daily responsible actions (Matthew 6). This perspective emphasizes religion as a catalyst for responsibility, rather than a mechanism for relinquishing it.
Conversely, individuals with high Withdrawal — characterized by serotonin deficiency and a propensity for avoidance and rumination — may be drawn to religious philosophies that emphasize inaction or acceptance, such as Taoism, Hinduism, or Buddhism. These traditions often highlight the illusory nature of control over one's destiny and incorporate deterministic elements, resonating with the psyche of those with high withdrawal. It's important to consider whether adherence to such religions stems from a deliberate choice to imbue life with purpose and structured daily practices, or if it's a coping mechanism aligned with their neurochemical predispositions.
The Value of Controlled Volatility
In unpredictable environments, decisive action becomes imperative for both individuals and leaders. One psychological strategy to address such uncertainty is the concept of "self-induced panic," where individuals deliberately heighten their emotional state to catalyze action. This approach aligns with the principles of Agile Leadership, which emphasizes adaptability and responsiveness in dynamic contexts.
Individuals with inherently high Volatility who have developed robust self-control can harness this trait as a strategic tool. By consciously "unleashing" their volatility, they become more emotional and risk-taking—knowingly and within broader, yet controlled, boundaries. This deliberate shift in emotional state is intended to prompt actions that, while not always optimal, are substantial enough to address challenges posed by external volatility.
Such leaders utilize their volatility to effect meaningful change, transforming the environment or effectively adapting to new realities. This perspective resonates with the VUCA framework (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity), which acknowledges the necessity for agile and decisive leadership in the face of external chaos.
Conversely, in stable and orderly environments, leaders with high Withdrawal may foster internal calmness within their teams or organizations. However, when external conditions become chaotic — such as during personal losses, health crises, or other significant challenges—leaders with high withdrawal tendencies may struggle to take decisive action or support others effectively.
Paradoxically, establishing a new order capable of coping with external chaos may require inducing a controlled degree of internal chaos and volatility. In such scenarios, the personality trait of volatility becomes a valuable asset, enabling leaders to navigate and mitigate the challenges presented by a tumultuous environment.
Structured Internal Value Hierarchies: A Key to Controlled Volatility
Empirical evidence suggests that individuals with a clear, monotheistic Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH) — aligned with their actions—can effectively manage high volatility. By freely choosing self-imposed restrictions based on their beliefs, such individuals can channel their inherent volatility in accordance with their values. This approach resonates with the concept of self-regulation, where personal standards guide behavior, enhancing emotional stability and goal attainment.
For individuals with high Withdrawal, adopting an SIVH offers two principal benefits:
Self-Awareness: Recognizing that their attraction to external ideologies or structures — such as religions that view control as illusory — may stem from internal predispositions, rather than solely external truths.
Proactive Engagement: Acknowledging the existence of higher principles or purposes that necessitate active intervention, thereby countering tendencies toward passivity.
This perspective aligns with the notion that status hierarchies within groups can influence individual contributions and overall group performance. Research indicates that disagreements or misalignments in perceived status can lead to reduced participation and effectiveness. rsfjournal.org+2ResearchGate+2JSTOR+2
By establishing a well-defined internal value hierarchy, individuals—regardless of their volatility or withdrawal tendencies — can better navigate their behavioral inclinations, leading to more adaptive and effective responses in various contexts.
An Example of Two Leaders Resolving the Conflict
In addressing the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the approaches of U.S. Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump exemplify contrasting leadership styles.
Joe Biden's Approach
President Biden's strategy was characterized by measured actions aimed at supporting Ukraine without escalating the conflict. His administration imposed severe sanctions on Russia and authorized substantial military aid to Ukraine, totaling over $8 billion in weapons shipments. However, Biden consistently refused Ukrainian requests to utilize U.S. weapons against targets inside Russia, reflecting a cautious approach to avoid direct confrontation. This strategy aligns with a leadership style that emphasizes restraint and calculated support.
Donald Trump's Approach
In contrast, President Trump adopted a more unpredictable and assertive stance. He threatened severe economic consequences for Russia if President Putin did not agree to a ceasefire, indicating a willingness to escalate economic pressure to achieve diplomatic goals. Trump's administration also proposed a 30-day ceasefire and resumed arms deliveries to Ukraine, signaling a readiness to take bold actions to influence the conflict's outcome. New York Postthetimes.co.uk+1theguardian.com+1thetimes.co.uk+2apnews.com+2theguardian.com+2
These differing approaches highlight how leadership styles — ranging from cautious and calculated to bold and unpredictable — can significantly influence the strategies employed in international conflict resolution.
Historical and Empirical Case Studies of Volatility in Leadership
Winston Churchill – Volatility as a Weapon in Times of Crisis
Winston Churchill exemplified a leader who strategically harnessed volatility to shape history. During World War II, Britain faced existential uncertainty, and Churchill’s leadership relied on bold rhetoric, high emotional engagement, and decisive action, much in line with controlled volatility. His speeches were fiery, laden with conviction, and designed to inspire not just resilience but action — rallying a nation under siege. However, Churchill was not reckless; he had the self-discipline to direct his volatility towards war strategy and coalition-building. His high Openness to Experience, Assertiveness, and low Withdrawal allowed him to face extreme uncertainty without resorting to inaction. Post-war, however, his volatility became less of an asset, and he was voted out as a peacetime leader, illustrating how environmental conditions dictate the usefulness of different traits.
Napoleon Bonaparte – Tactical Volatility for Military Dominance
Napoleon Bonaparte provides another case where volatility, when structured and self-directed, became a strategic tool. His risk-taking and rapid decision-making helped him outmaneuver opponents and build one of history’s largest empires. Napoleon’s volatility was not chaotic; it was calculated aggression, as seen in his use of the Grande Armée’s mobility and innovative battlefield tactics. However, his volatility had a threshold — when unchecked, as in the Russian campaign, it led to overextension and ultimate downfall. This demonstrates that while volatility creates momentum and opportunities, it must be bounded by reality to remain effective.
Elon Musk – Volatility as a Driver of Innovation
In the modern era, Elon Musk embodies controlled volatility in business leadership. He frequently makes bold, high-risk decisions, such as launching SpaceX with private funding when failure seemed imminent or betting Tesla’s future on mass-producing electric vehicles before market viability was clear. Musk’s high volatility manifests in his willingness to disrupt entire industries, but it is structured by a strong internal value hierarchy (technological progress, space exploration, sustainable energy) that keeps his actions aligned with long-term goals. His volatility enables breakthroughs but also creates instability — his controversial public statements and impulsive business moves show the fine line between productive volatility and self-sabotage.
Conclusion
Understanding the balance between volatility and withdrawal is essential for effective leadership and personal decision-making. While withdrawal fosters harmony in stable environments, it often leads to inaction when faced with uncertainty. In contrast, volatility — when controlled and purposefully unleashed — has the power to drive real change, enabling leaders to transform chaotic situations into opportunities for progress. Those with Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs) can harness volatility as a tool, channeling it into decisive action rather than impulsive chaos. This distinction is evident in real-world leadership, where figures who embrace strategic volatility demonstrate a greater ability to influence outcomes. Ultimately, while both traits have their place, controlled volatility emerges as a vital mechanism for adaptation and success in an unpredictable world.
Some of the References Used for the Article
Freud, S. (1911). Psycho-Analytic Notes on an Autobiographical Account of a Case of Paranoia (Dementia Paranoides). In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud(Vol. 12, pp. 1-82). London: Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1924). Neurosis and Psychosis. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19, pp. 149-154). London: Hogarth Press.
DeYoung, C. G., & Gray, J. R. (2009). Personality Neuroscience: Explaining Individual Differences in Affect, Behavior, and Cognition. In P. J. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 323-346). Cambridge University Press.
DeYoung, C. G. (2010). Toward a Theory of the Big Five. Psychological Inquiry, 21(1), 26-33.
DeYoung, C. G. (2013). The Neuromodulator of Exploration: A Unifying Theory of the Role of Dopamine in Personality. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 762.
Freud, S. (1923). The Ego and the Id. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19, pp. 1-66). London: Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1926). Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 20, pp. 75-174). London: Hogarth Press.
DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris, X., Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J. R. (2010). Testing Predictions from Personality Neuroscience: Brain Structure and the Big Five. Psychological Science, 21(6), 820-828.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and Leadership: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.
Roberts, A. (2003). Napoleon: A Life. Penguin Books.
Johnson, P. (2009). Churchill. Penguin Books.
Vance, A. (2015). Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future. HarperCollins.
McDonough, F. (2002). Neville Chamberlain, Appeasement, and the British Road to War. Manchester University Press.
Bourne, P. G. (1997). Jimmy Carter: A Comprehensive Biography from Plains to Post-Presidency. Scribner.
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 149-190.
Joiner, B., & Josephs, S. (2007). Leadership Agility: Five Levels of Mastery for Anticipating and Initiating Change. Jossey-Bass.
Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What VUCA Really Means for You. Harvard Business Review, 92(1/2), 27.
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). The Pursuit of Status in Social Groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 295-298.
Freud, S. (1923). Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 16, pp. 241-463). London: Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1900). The Interpretation of Dreams. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 4-5). London: Hogarth Press.
Gay, P. (2006). Freud: A Life for Our Time. Norton.
Appignanesi, L., & Forrester, J. (2005). Freud's Women. Penguin Books.
Jones, E. (1957). The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud. Basic Books.
Mannoni, O. (2015). Freud: The Theory of the Unconscious. Verso Books.
