If the title of this post sounds a bit ambiguous, there's a good reason. This post is a step into one of the gray areas of workplace politics, where authority relationships are blurry, and where positive contributions are difficult to distinguish from sabotage. It's a place where the conventional rules governing workplace collaboration aren't clear. And even if the rules were clear, there are questions about whether those rules apply. Perhaps the grayest parts of these gray areas are the regions we enter when interpersonal trouble arises. And one situation that tends to lead to interpersonal trouble involves quasi-narcissistic quasi-subordinates.
One structure that inherently produces quasi-subordinate relationships among collaborators might be termed a mandated collaboration. A mandated collaboration is formed when a piece of work requires the experience, knowledge, and effort of a combination of people who don't customarily collaborate; who have different organizational rank; who have varied and non-overlapping areas of experience and expertise; who have different levels of understanding of the goal of the collaboration; and at least some of whom believe that the object of the collaboration is unworthy of their effort.
Typically, mandated collaborations don't form spontaneously. Management appoints group members, though in some cases the appointing authority does seek volunteers. Lines of organizational authority rarely connect group members, because they're drawn from diverse units of the organization. And in some cases, the "Lead" — the person most responsible for the work — is of organizational rank less than or equal to some of the team members. The term quasi-subordinate describes the organizational relationship between the Lead and the other group members. The Lead has no formal organizational authority over the group members beyond the work of the collaboration.
Problematic group members
The second Mandated collaborations lie in a gray area of
workplace politics, where lines of authority
are blurry, and positive contributions are
difficult to distinguish from sabotageingredient that helps to produce interpersonal trouble is the problematic group member. These folks come in great variety, but the quasi-narcissist is of particular interest. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is an actual medical diagnosis, but we all exhibit narcissistic traits from time to time. Narcissism is a spectrum; it's a condition that we find in degrees. I'll use the term quasi-narcissist to denote a level of the condition that's somewhat beyond what we find in most of us, but significantly milder than we find in NPD.
Consider the following example scenario illustrating problematic behavior in a mandated collaboration.
Paula has been designated Lead for a proof-of-concept study of a new product idea. David has been assigned to assist Paula with the many administrative tasks and "what-if" models that Sonya, the project sponsor, expects will be required during the six-month effort. David and Paula are of equal rank, but David is less experienced than Paula with this particular kind of work.
David enjoys the what-if parts of his assignment, because they involve guiding a small team in the use of a technology David wants to learn more about. But David doesn't enjoy the more administrative parts of his assignment. So he has adopted a pattern of foot-dragging with respect to the administrative work, while suggesting to Sonya many new ideas and experiments to perform.
David's conversations with Sonya are clearly out of bounds; he should offer his ideas to Paula and let her decide whether to take them to Sonya. But David feels that his talents are "wasted" in that role and he has decided to adjust the scope of his assignment to a configuration more to his liking.
This scenario clearly involves a mandated collaboration — one in which the lines of authority between Paula and David run contrary to their past experiences. With respect to this project, David is Paula's subordinate. But in the organization formally, he is not. He intentionally departs from the conventional communications customs by directly working with Sonya. And so in multiple ways, David is acting as a quasi-subordinate, enabled by the realities of the mandated collaboration.
Moreover, David has decided to adjust his own job responsibilities. He feels strongly enough about his own talents and importance that he can take action on his own to make adjustments, rather than expressing his desires to Paula to seek an accommodation that might work for them both. He has a personal goal regarding a new technology, and finds a way to motivate Sonya to help him achieve that goal, even though he knows that Sonya would be violating organizational norms in doing so. All of these actions are consistent with the definitions of narcissistic behavior, though the behaviors in question are far from adequate to make a diagnosis of NPD. Arrogant, yes. Self-serving, yes. But not NPD. I call them quasi-narcissistic.
A brief review of NPD in the workplace is available in a series of posts from 2018. Below is a list of the nine indicators of NPD-related behavior. They can serve as indicators of quasi-narcissistic behavior.
- Expresses exaggerated self-importance
- Preoccupied with superiority fantasies
- Believes that he or she is special
- 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
Mandated collaborations, with their poorly defined lines of authority, can be fertile ground for quasi-narcissistic behavior. To limit the risk of interpersonal trouble, limit the participation in mandated collaborations of those people most inclined to exhibit quasi-narcissistic behavior.
That seems obvious. Why, then, do we find so many mandated collaborations with quasi-narcissistic members among their people? One possibility is that the managers who create these collaborations are unaware of the risks. Another is that they don't know what else to do with the troublesome quasi-narcissists. Or perhaps they object to the mission of the collaboration, but can't find any other way to stop it. Possible explanations abound. Top Next Issue
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? rbrenIyeJIiAfnGdKlUXrner@ChacsxirZwZlENmHUNHioCanyon.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.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
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 Conflict Management:
- Can You Hear Me Now?
- Not feeling heard can feel like an attack, even when there was no attack, and then conversation can
quickly turn to war. Here are some tips for hearing your conversation partner and for conveying the
message that you actually did hear.
- Recalcitrant Collaborators
- Much of the work we do happens outside the context of a team. We collaborate with people in other departments,
other divisions, and other companies. When these collaborators are reluctant, resistive, or recalcitrant,
what can we do?
- What Do You Need?
- When working issues jointly with others, especially with one other, we sometimes hear, "What do
you need to make this work?" Your answers can doom your effort — or make it a smashing success.
- How to Misunderstand Somebody Else
- Misunderstandings are commonplace at work, as in most of the rest of Life. At work, they might be even
more commonplace, because at work it sometimes seems that people are actually trying to misunderstand.
Here's a handy guide for those who want to get better at misunderstanding others.
- Conversation Irritants: II
- Workplace conversation is difficult enough, because of stress, time pressure, and the complexity of
our discussions. But it's even more vexing when people actually try to be nasty, unclear, and ambiguous.
Here's Part II of a small collection of their techniques.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming February 28: Checklists: Conventional or Auditable
- Checklists help us remember the steps of complex procedures, and the order in which we must execute them. The simplest form is the conventional checklist. But when we need a record of what we've done, we need an auditable checklist. Available here and by RSS on February 28.
- And on March 6: Six More Insights About Workplace Bullying
- Some of the lore about dealing with bullies at work isn't just wrong — it's harmful. It's harmful in the sense that applying it intensifies the bullying. Here are six insights that might help when devising strategies for dealing with bullies at work. Example: Letting yourself be bullied is not a thing. Available here and by RSS on March 6.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenIyeJIiAfnGdKlUXrner@ChacsxirZwZlENmHUNHioCanyon.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 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info