Exploitation and Conversational Narcissism at Work: I

This exploration of conversational narcissism began with "Self-Importance and Conversational Narcissism at Work: I," Point Lookout for October 4, 2023, with some definitions and examples. Briefly, conversational narcissism is the set of behaviors a conversation participant uses to direct the focus of a conversation from the topic at hand onto that participant or in directions favored by that participant. Conversational narcissism is a threat to organizational wellbeing because it distorts the outcomes of discussions — biasing them in ways preferred by individuals whose personal agendas might not align with organizational interests.

The methods used can be categorized as emphasizing some combination of self-importance, exploitation of others, exhibitionism, and impersonal relationships. This post introduces the narcissistic behaviors that are most closely associated with exploiting other participants in the conversation.

A bit of terminology

In that In one pattern, the abuser can derail
the conversation by opening a new topic
with which only the abuser is familiarearlier post I introduced the term abuser as a shorthand for narcissistic conversation participant, because the term narcissist won't do — not all abusers are narcissists. In general, it's the behavior that is narcissistic, not the person exhibiting the behavior (though some who exhibit the behavior are narcissists). And I described ploys abusers use and which are associated with a sense of self-importance of the abuser.

In what follows, as in the previous posts in this series, I describe someone as "having the talking stick" if he or she is the person whom the conversation participants acknowledge as the current speaker. (The term speaker won't do, because someone else might be speaking too.)

Guided by the work of Vangelisti, et al., I've collected ten different patterns abusers use and which are associated with exploiting other conversation participants. [Vangelisti 1990]

Patterns of conversational narcissism that are associated with exploitation of others

In this post I describe four patterns abusers use to exploit the other conversation participants. This first set of four includes patterns used to control who has the talking stick. They include indirectly directing, unfairly claiming sole agency, using statements that require the auditor to respond, and using masked enthymemes.

Descriptions follow. Next time I describe six more patterns associated with exploiting others.

Indirectly directing

Abusers can direct the focus of attention onto themselves using a variety of transparent ploys. For example, an abuser can derail the conversation by opening a new topic with which only the abuser is familiar. But subtler tactics are also available. An abuser can offer information (call it A) that connects to a topic of special interest to the abuser, but as yet unmentioned, (call it B). Typically, this is done in a manner that conceals the connection between A and B. When the conversation eventually turns to B, the A-B connection is likely to become clear, at which point the abuser can take control of the conversation.

Unfairly claiming sole agency

When discussing a topic with which many are familiar, or a project that involved several participants, the abuser can use "I" statements that should properly be "We" statements. To those unfamiliar with the topic, the abuser would seem to be the leader or resident expert, whether or not that impression is accurate.

Using statements that require the auditor to respond

Nofsinger [Nofsinger 1975] defines a "demand ticket" as an utterance such as "Guess what?" which requires the auditor to respond. Examples:

• When do you think scientists predict global warming will be irreversible?
• Guess how many X occurred last year?
• I've heard that, too, but you know what?

Abusers can use demand tickets to establish and maintain a false power position in the conversation. They are effective because they place the abuser in a position analogous to the conductor of an orchestra.

Using masked enthymemes

An enthymeme is a form of logical argument. There are several types, but the type that lends itself to exploiting others is called a truncated syllogism. Example of an enthymeme: "Socrates is mortal because he's human." This enthymeme is the truncated form of a formal syllogism, specifically:

• All humans are mortal.
• Socrates is human.
• Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

What has been truncated in the enthymeme is the first statement of the formal syllogism, namely, "All humans are mortal."

A masked enthymeme is a truncated enthymeme in which the truncated step of the syllogism is so obscure or so little known that the enthymeme appears to be logically incorrect. Abusers use masked enthymemes to compel auditors to ask for explanations. Wielded by a skilled abuser, the masked enthymeme is a tool of humiliation.

Last words

Exploiting other conversation participants is unpleasant for those exploited, but the pattern can also harm the organization in material ways. By exploiting others, the abuser gains power and control unrelated to the organizational value of the abuser's performance as a member of the organization. And that can lead the organization to commit to efforts unjustified by potential results.   First issue in this series    Next issue in this series   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

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

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.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

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.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Meetings:

When the Chair Is a Bully: I

Most meetings have chairs or "leads." Although the expression that the chair "owns" the meeting is usually innocent shorthand, some chairs actually believe that they own the meeting. This view is almost entirely destructive. What are the consequences of this attitude, and what can we do about it?

Some Subtleties of ad hominem Attacks

Groups sometimes make mistakes based on faulty reasoning used in their debates. One source of faulty reasoning is the ad hominem attack. Here are some insights that help groups recognize and avoid this class of errors.

Stone-Throwers at Meetings: I

One class of disruptions in meetings includes the tactics of stone-throwers — people who exploit low-cost tactics to disrupt the meeting and distract all participants so as to obstruct progress. How do they do it, and what can the meeting chair do?

Formulaic Utterances: II

Formulaic utterances are things we say that follow a pre-formed template. They're familiar to all, and have standard uses. "For example" is an example. In the workplace, some of them can be useful for establishing or maintaining dominance and credibility.

Allocating Action Items

From time to time in meetings we discover tasks that need doing. We call them "action items." And we use our list of open action items as a guide for tracking the work of the group. How we decide who gets what action item can sometimes affect our success.

See also Effective Meetings and Effective Meetings for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.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