"As we debate the nature of narcissism, we find ourselves in the midst of related and unrelated definitions used in different clinical concepts in psychiatry and psychoanalysis."
Whereas most of us – consciously or unconsciously, implicitly or explicitly - consider ‘narcissism’ as primarily pathological or problematic, we may actually either describe, as the first blog in this series and the KDVI workshop during the 9thESMT/KDVI Coaching Colloquium in Berlin in 2017 reflected, different degrees of the phenomenon as lying on a spectrum of only mildly to blatantly problematic or even differentiate between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ consequences of narcissism.
As we debate the nature of narcissism - its origins and its expressions - we find ourselves in the midst of related and unrelated definitions used in different clinical concepts in psychiatry and psychoanalysis on the one hand and their echo(s) in the concepts we express implicitly as well as explicitly in our everyday language on the other hand.
The following brief outline shall organisethese implicit and explicit concepts along certain clinical considerations. ‘Clinical’ refers in this context to the observations made in treatment, that is: in psychiatric, mostly in psychoanalytic frameworks. These frameworks may form a good basis for a psychodynamically informed approach in coaching.
Psychiatric and psychoanalytic concepts may be grouped into two categories: one category describes psychological phenomena ‘from within’ the individual and is thus referred to as a one-person psychology. The difficulties a person demonstrates stem from his or her internal set-up. Within the frame of developmental considerations, this set-up is usually regarded as predetermined by ‘human nature’.
The other category looks at psychological phenomena from a two-persons perspective, which implies that the psychological phenomena we observe unfold in the interpersonal, interactive, world of our human encounters. This also applies to the developmental conceptualisation: what I experience in the other person at this very moment is not only embedded in my current interactions with that person at this very moment but is also a reflection of this person’s (and my own) experiences with others in the past and the traces these experiences have left in my mental set-up.
As we debate the origins and expressions of narcissism it is thus of great importance whether we regard them as a given trait of a certain individual or as phenomena emerging out of the ways in which at least two people interact with each other at any given moment.
In simple terms this means that we either say of someone that he or she is a narcissist, or we say: in a certain moment a person displays a certain behaviour in his or her interactions with others which is conceptualised as related to what we call narcissism.
It originates in motives that come to the foreground in a certain interaction. The first model is a more static one, the second is a dynamic one. And: yes, there is a combined approach, which considers that a person’s response is caused both by the person’s motives as well as the situation in which these motives become relevant.
Whether we consider a certain behaviour as rooted in a person’s static set-up or in their ‘narcissistically’ motivated reaction to a certain interactional experience in the here-and-now has far reaching consequences for the models we develop in the effort to design appropriate responses both in treatment as well as in coaching. These are further influenced by our assessment of the ‘degree’ of a person’s narcissistic tendency, either static or dynamic.
The two most prominent theoreticians in the psychoanalytic conceptualisation(s) of narcissism are Otto Kernberg and Heinz Kohut. Their conceptualisations are indeed very different because they focus on two possibly related but at first sight very different aspects: Whereas Kernberg underlines the problematic consequences of a person’s ‘narcissistic’ behaviour, Kohut underlines the possible motives for the person’s behaviour. In the clinical approach this has far reaching consequences. It is my experience that this also applies to the context of coaching.
In simplified terms we may distinguish between an approach that tells a person in what their behaviour is ‘dysfunctional’ or ‘disruptive’ (“cut it out”) and an approach that tries to understand the underlying motives in order to assess the nature of the person’s behaviour (“I can see why you act the way you do.”; maybe even: “I can see why you could not respond otherwise.”).
The approach I favour is in fact to consider both at the same time: to consider a certain behaviour as a response to a defined interpersonal interaction AND as the expression of the individual’s motives to respond to this interaction in a specific way.
This difference leads us to an important consideration: if a certain behaviour, be it dysfunctional or disruptive, is considered as motivated, we need to ask about the nature of that motive. Most of all we have to ask ourselves if the person can cut out the dysfunctional or disruptive behaviour as long as the motive is still active. If the motive is in fact indispensable, that is, an existential need, then the behaviour will continue until the need is either fulfilled or is not as pressing anymore.
But what is the need? In general terms, we may regard the need that generates the behaviour, which we then categorise as ‘narcissistically motivated’, as the need to regain a threatened or disrupted psychic equilibrium.
The person who lost his or her psychic equilibrium will do whatever it takes to regain it. This makes it so pressing. And this may lead to the often observed phenomenon that a certain behaviour is difficult for others to bare and at the same time difficult for the person ‘to cut out’.
In more specific terms we often refer to the need that fosters the exhibit of so called ‘narcissistic’ behaviour as the need for recognition. In our everyday language as well as in academic circles both the need as well as the behaviour expressing that need are referred to as ‘narcissistic’.
On the one hand this makes it difficult to distinguish between motives and their effects, on the other hand it allows us to differentiate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ aspects of narcissism. These considerations finally lead us to a specific question in relation to the task of coaching:
How does the coach respond to his or her finding that the coachee’s behaviour does in fact have negative consequences? The discussion among the group that met in Berlin demonstrated that it is important to differentiate between negative consequences it has for the coachee versus negative consequences it may have for his or her environment.
In both cases, we shall have to consider our underlying assumptions regarding the nature of the problem: Does it lie in the mindset of the individual (which the individual may have to ‘change’, however that may be realised) or does it emanate in a certain interactional matrix (which the individual may find ways to avoid)?
Or does it lie in the specific response of the individual to an interpersonal interaction, which the individual may find ways to handle in such a way that his or her motives and needs are validated as understandable but do not necessarily have to be fulfilled by his or her social environment immediately and to the fullest degree possible?
Personally, I favour the latter approach. For two (most likely interrelated) reasons: On the one hand, it allows for a dynamic understanding of the complex interplay between the individual’s needs and his or her response to his or her environment. On the other hand, it has proven to be most effective. Probably because a dynamic approach allows the best entry into the complex interplay. And it is only when we find entry into the complex interplay that we can actually make a difference within this interplay. We may find that the motivated behaviour can be used constructively if its nature is appreciated and its expression used creatively. In the best interest of the coachee as well as his environment.
KDVI Research Lab, 2018
"Differences as assets"
This blog entry explores the idea of accepting ones leadership strenghts instead of merely fitting in.
Published on 16 Feb, 2015
"Reflective writing as carthartic process"
This blog entry with the Harward Business Review looks at the therapeutic effect of writing.
Published on 26 Nov, 2014
"Ways to Manage Difficult Bosses"
This article explores the options available to anyone who has to manage a bad boss. Much of it will feel like common sense. But people often forget that it’s in their power to improve bad situations, so having the options systematically laid out can be very helpful.
Published on 1 Dec, 2016
"Corporate genius and psychopaths"
This blog entry with the Harvard Business Review. discusses the thin line between corporate genius and psychopaths.
Published on 7 Jan, 2014
'Words can give, at times, the illusion of providing a clear meaning'
The KDVI Research Lab is happy to announce another blog in our series that explores the undercurrents of positive organisational change. This time KDVI Associate Christopher Bockmann explores how the gap between what is intended, expressed and understood can be reduced.
Published on 15 Jan, 2018
"Complexity of the mental models of the leaders"
This blog entry discusses the underlying cause of the gap between the complexity of the mental model of the leader and the complexity of the world surrounding him/her.
Published on 11 Mar, 2014
"What do executives want out of life?"
This article is based on the responses of 160 senior executives to questions of what success means to them.
Published on 9 Jan, 2009
"Group coaching second to none to have executives sing on the same page"
This article illustrates how group coaching can be a methodology second to none, to have executives sing on the same page—and accelerate execution. It is an intervention methodology increasingly utilised by premier strategic consulting firms.
Published on 7 Mar, 2015
"Group coaching for team alignment"
This article discusses how to get things done by applying the group coaching methodology.
Published on 21 May, 2014
Stubbornness isn’t necessarily bad and can in fact be a virtue
Although stubborness can makes us persevere and seem strong, it is important to realise what the driving forces behind this stubborness are. Remember, the pathway to greatness is the ability to change one’s mind when proven wrong.
Published on 1 Oct, 2018