Off-Putting 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 along 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.

As noted in earlier posts, the methods used can be categorized as emphasizing some combination of self-importance, exploitation of others, exhibitionism, and impersonal relationships. This post continues an exploration of the narcissistic behaviors that are most closely associated with impersonal relationships.

A bit of terminology

Following the pattern of previous posts in this series, I begin with some introductory information, repeated here for convenience. If you recall those earlier posts well enough, you can skip this next bit.

In the first post of this series 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's narcissistic, not the person exhibiting the behavior (though some who exhibit the behavior are narcissists).

In these posts, I describe someone as "having the talking stick" if they are the person whom the conversation participants acknowledge as the current speaker. (The term speaker won't do, because someone else might be speaking too.)

Six patterns of conversational narcissism that are associated with impersonal relationships

The term off-putting interactions refers to the kinds of interactions abusers use to create obstacles for other conversation participants as they try to connect with the abuser in the context of the conversation. Sometimes the obstacle is an indirect result of the abuser's behavior; sometimes it's the actual goal. But the effect is the same. The behavior is off-putting.

Guided When abusers no longer see any point in
exerting the effort required to remain
connected to the conversation, glazing
over can be the result of "powering down"by the work of Vangelisti, et al., I've collected 17 different patterns abusers use and which are associated with the theme of impersonal relationships. [Vangelisti 1990] Although they use the term impersonal relationships to refer to this theme, I prefer off-putting interactions. My preference arises from my desire for a term that includes interactions between people who don't have much of a personal relationship beyond the incident at hand. This might occur, for example, in the (relatively common) case of a cross-functional team or task force comprised of people who work together only rarely. Another example: making a case to a governance panel for a waiver of policy.

In this post I describe six patterns abusers use to create and maintain distance between themselves and other conversation participants. These first six patterns all relate to the abuser's failure to honor what might be called the responsiveness contract. The responsiveness contract is a (usually) unspoken and unwritten agreement among the conversation participants. It governs the form, content, and timing of the participants' responses to each other's contributions. Abusers have a variety of techniques for violating this contract, described below.

Glazing over when others speak

Abusers have little interest in others' contributions, except perhaps as vehicles for steering the conversation in abusers' favored directions. Once it becomes clear that a particular contribution is unlikely to serve the abuser's purpose, the abuser might glaze over. When abusers no longer see any point in exerting the effort required to remain connected to the conversation, glazing over is the result of "powering down." In extreme cases, glazing over occurs before the other participant's contribution is clear — the fact that someone other than the abuser is speaking is trigger enough.

Not really listening to others

Abusers do listen to others' contributions, but they don't listen for meaning, as others do. Instead, they listen for opportunity. They seek opportunities to use others' contributions to satisfy their preconceived agenda. They want to determine how or how easily they can use anyone else's contribution to steer the conversation in the direction they prefer. As a result, the abuser doesn't actually grasp the meaning of the contribution. To others the abuser seems not to be really listening.

Responding tersely

The abuser's response to another's contribution might seem curt, abrupt, or disrespectful. That it might be. But one other possibility is the abuser's desire not to reveal how little of the other's contribution they actually understood. The abuser seeks not to understand others' contributions, but to exploit them, and for that reason, the abuser's grasp of the meaning of others' contributions tends to be limited. Terseness provides cover for this limited understanding of what others have said.

Responding after delay

In some situations, the abuser is expected to respond to the contribution of another. Examples include being asked a direct question, or being expected to respond to a comment about one of the abuser's comments. Occasionally, a long pause occurs before the abuser begins speaking. Other participants might be mystified by the pause, especially if the abuser has contributed energetically up to this point. This can happen if the abuser has powered down, having concluded that the conversation has entered a domain that doesn't serve the abuser's purpose, or if the abuser has hit on another course to reach the objective, or another more attractive objective. Delayed responses can also occur as the abuser replays in their head the last minute or so of whatever anyone has said.

Responding inappropriately

When a response is called for, but the abuser wants the conversation to move in a different direction, the abuser might respond in a way that seems inappropriate for the context. This can happen when the abuser tries to respond but hasn't really grasped the meaning of the latest comments.

An inappropriate response can also occur when the abuser decides to respond, but chooses to use the response to re-orient the conversation toward a more preferred objective. What might seem to be an inappropriate response given the context is in fact appropriate relative to the abuser's new objective.

Not responding

Sometimes an abuser declines to respond when expected to respond. Reasons vary. The abuser might be distracted, unaware that a response is expected. Or the abuser might be intentionally plopping the other participant's contribution. Or the abuser might be one who is confident that the participants will wait politely for the abuser's response while the clock ticks. There are many possibilities.

Last words

In next week's post I'll examine five more patterns abusers use to distance themselves from other conversation participants. The patterns of next week's post relate to how abusers employ their demeanor to distract other conversation participants.   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:

Figuring Out What to Do First

Whether we belong to a small project team or to an executive team, we have limited resources and seemingly unlimited problems to deal with. How do we decide which problems are important? How do we decide where to focus our attention first?

Discussion Distractions: II

Meetings are less productive than they might be, if we could learn to recognize and prevent the most common distractions. Here is Part II of a small catalog of distractions frequently seen in meetings.

Tangled Thread Troubles

Even when we use a facilitator to manage a discussion, managing a queue for contributors can sometimes lead to problems. Here's a little catalog of those difficulties.

Exploiting Failed Ideas

When the approach you've been using fails, how do you go about devising Plan B? Or Plan C? Here are some ways to find new approaches by examining failures.

Toxic Disrupters: Responses

Some people tend to disrupt meetings. Their motives vary, but their techniques are predictable. If we've identified someone as using these techniques we have available a set of effective actions that can guide him or her toward a more productive role.

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

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