In small organizations, as in small towns, respecting others is essential to social survival. People who are consistently disrespectful of others are soon caught at it, and the rest of the population collaborates to either eject offenders or bring them to heel. Larger organizations are different. In larger organizations, those who disrespect others are able to move from place to place rapidly enough to avoid enforcement action and sometimes, even to avoid recognition of their pattern. Larger organizations can be fertile ground for narcissistic behaviors, especially behaviors that would be recognizable if exhibited repeatedly. In this sense, the organization plays a role in the genesis and incidence of narcissistic behavior.
For example, consider the condescending remark. Condescension is one way to elevate oneself by denigrating others. Used in private, it's nasty enough. But in public, it can be devastating, especially if the target of the condescension feels unable to respond in defense — or counterattack — perhaps because of lesser organizational status than the condescender, or some other constraint.
As a reminder, the behaviors and attitudes typically regarded as narcissistic are these:
- Expresses exaggerated self-importance
- Preoccupied with superiority fantasies
- Believes that he or she is special and that only special people or institutions can fully appreciate that specialness
- Constantly demands attention and admiration from others
- Expects and demands favorable treatment
- Exploits others for personal ends
- Displays ruthless disregard for the feelings of others
- Envies others or believes that others envy him or her
- Is off-the-charts arrogant
Let's now have a closer look at the seventh item above: ruthless disregard for the feelings of others. For convenience in this series, I've been referring to the person exhibiting narcissistic behaviors and attitudes as either Nick or Nora. This time it's Nora.
- Narcissistic behavior in children seems to adults to be harmless, though children do experience it more intensely. That might be why it provides such a useful template for understanding the adult pattern. Name-calling is one of its simpler forms, but it also includes bullying and cyber-bullying, deprecatory nicknames, condescending or patronizing remarks, insults, rumormongering, isolation tactics — anything that might make the target feel bad or defensive.
- Whether in Whether in adults or children,
the offender's objective is
inflicting pain on the target,
as publicly as possibleadults or children, the offender's objective is inflicting pain on the target, as publicly as possible.
- Although I (following many others) have described this behavior as disregard for the feelings of others, it's possible that disregard isn't quite the right term. To disregard would be to ignore. What actually happens is more like directed effort to eliminate a perceived threat, which requires focused attention, rather than inattention or ignoring. People who exhibit this behavior do so with consistency and passion to attain and then maintain the view of themselves that they seek.
- For example, suppose Nora encounters a confident and popular individual I'll call Cora. Assessing Cora's social status, Nora perceives Cora as a threat, most intensely if Cora challenges Nora or even if she simply declines to subordinate herself to Nora. To neutralize the threat, Nora begins with indirect or subtly dismissive tactics, but she'll escalate to whatever level is necessary to defuse the threat she perceives from Cora.
- Nora's targets sometimes regard these attacks as personal, in the sense that they believe that Nora might harbor some ill will toward them. That might be true in some cases, but the primary motivator for Nora's attacks is not animus; rather, it is the need to assuage her own concerns about the threats she believes these targets might represent.
- Organizational risks
- Nora's behavior has undesirable effects, both direct and indirect. Among the direct effects, her treatment of Cora (or anyone she perceives as a threat) creates or contributes to a toxic atmosphere. Teamwork and cooperation suffer. Among indirect effects, her treatment of Cora intimidates others, who then avoid Nora, or limit their interactions with her. They might even limit their contributions to avoid conflict with Nora. This withholding behavior deprives the organization of information and contributions that might at times be important. It can be just as destructive as any of the more common forms of holding back.
- Coping tactics
- As Nora's supervisor, recognize that her behavior could increase turnover among your more capable subordinates. Tolerating it is therefore risky. Because intervening to alter her behavior is unlikely to succeed, the most effective alternatives are termination, transfer, or isolation. Terminating Nora or transferring her must be done with care and advice from Human Resources representatives. Isolation might be more practical, because it need not be total. It's sufficient to isolate her from anyone she regards as a threat.
- As Nora's co-worker, your chances of being targeted are correlated with Nora's perception of your social status. In time, she'll either move on to another position voluntarily, or management will reassign or terminate her. But that time might not arrive soon. In the meantime, you must choose to either assume a less visible, less respected role, or accept her attacks, or counterattack so effectively that she will voluntarily exit. If she is especially adept, the choice to become less visible might be the wisest.
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- Are You a Fender?
- Taking political risks is part of the job, especially if you want the challenges and rewards that come
with increased responsibility. That's fair. But some people manage political risks by offloading them
onto subordinates. Be certain that the risk burden you carry is really your own — and that you
carry all of it yourself.
- Obstructionist Tactics: II
- Teams and groups depend for their success on highly effective cooperation between their members. If
even one person is unable or unwilling to cooperate, the team's performance is limited. Here's Part
II of a little catalog of tactics.
- Active Deceptions at Work
- Among the vast family of workplace deceptions, those that involve presenting fiction as reality are
among the most exasperating, because we sometimes feel fooled or gullible. Lies are the simplest example
of this type, but there are others, and some are fiendishly clever.
- Deep Trouble and Getting Deeper
- Here's a catalog of actions people take when the projects they're leading are in deep trouble, and they're
pretty sure there's no way out.
- Columbo Tactics: II
- This is Part II of a series showing how the less powerful can adapt the tactics of TV detective Lt.
Columbo when they're interacting with the more powerful.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.