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:

Mastering Meeting Madness

If you lead an organization, and people are mired in meeting madness, you can end it. Here are a few tips that can free everyone to finally get some work done.

Games for Meetings: IV

We spend a lot of time and emotional energy in meetings, much of it engaged in any of dozens of ritualized games. Here's Part IV of a little catalog of some of our favorites, and what we could do about them.

Rationalizing Creativity at Work: II

Creative thinking at work can be nurtured or encouraged, but not forced or compelled. Leaders who try to compel creativity because of very real financial and schedule pressures rarely get the results they seek. Here are examples of tactics people use in mostly-futile attempts to compel creativity.

Workplace Politics and Social Exclusion: I

In the workplace, social exclusion is the practice of systematically excluding someone from activities in which they would otherwise be invited to participate. When used in workplace politics, it's ruinous for the person excluded, and expensive to the organization.

Pre-Decision Discussions: Reasoning

When we meet to resolve issues related to upcoming decisions, we sometimes rely on reasoning to help find solutions. Contributions to these discussions generally use mixtures of deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. How do they differ, and what are their strengths and risks?

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 22: Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing. Available here and by RSS on January 22.

And on January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

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