Flying Monkeys and Narcissism at Work: When Third Parties Become Part of the Conflict

Flying Monkeys and Narcissism at Work: When Third Parties Become Part of the Conflict

You have a conflict with one person.

Then something strange happens.

Suddenly another colleague approaches you.

Then someone else asks a surprisingly specific question.

A person who was never involved in the original issue now has a strong opinion about it.

Your version of events appears to be circulating.

Or rather:

someone else’s version of events.

You may hear:

“I think you should simply apologize.”

“Everyone is wondering why you are making this so difficult.”

“I was told that you agreed to this.”

“Perhaps you misunderstood what happened.”

Now you are no longer dealing only with the original conflict.

Third parties have become part of the situation.

In popular discussions about narcissistic relationships, these third parties are sometimes called “flying monkeys.”

The term is memorable.

It can also encourage oversimplification.

In professional situations, it is usually more useful to examine what people are actually doing, what information they have, and how the network around the conflict is influencing decisions.

What Does “Flying Monkey” Mean?

The expression comes from The Wizard of Oz, in which the Wicked Witch uses winged monkeys to carry out her instructions.

In contemporary popular psychology, the phrase is used for people who become involved on behalf of someone considered manipulative, controlling, or narcissistic.

They may:

• carry messages
• apply pressure
• repeat accusations
• spread a particular version of events
• collect information
• defend one person aggressively
• attempt to influence others

Some may understand exactly what they are doing.

Others may believe they are helping.

Some may simply believe a different version of events than you do.

“Flying monkey” is an informal label, not a clinical diagnosis and not an established organizational-psychology category.

That distinction matters.

Do Not Let a Memorable Label Replace Analysis

The term can become seductive.

You have a difficult conflict.

Someone supports the other person.

Now it is tempting to conclude:

“Another flying monkey.”

Perhaps.

Perhaps not.

They may:

• have received incomplete information
• genuinely believe the other person’s account
• be protecting their own interests
• feel loyalty toward that person
• be responding to hierarchy
• want the conflict to disappear
• have reached an independent conclusion

Someone disagreeing with you is not evidence that they have been manipulated.

That is one of the most important safeguards when using this concept.

The More Useful Question

Instead of asking:

“Is this person a flying monkey?”

ask:

“What role is this person currently playing in the conflict?”

Are they:

• bringing useful information?
• mediating?
• carrying messages?
• reinforcing pressure?
• spreading unverified claims?
• collecting information for someone else?
• protecting organizational interests?
• protecting their own position?

Behavior gives you something you can respond to.

A label often gives you only another person to distrust.

How Third Parties Become Part of Workplace Conflict

Workplace conflicts rarely remain perfectly contained between two people.

Organizations are networks.

People talk.

They have:

• alliances
• reporting relationships
• friendships
• commercial dependencies
• shared interests
• career incentives

When a significant conflict develops, other people naturally begin forming impressions.

The situation becomes more problematic when third parties are deliberately or repeatedly used to increase pressure, shape reputation, isolate someone, or influence decisions indirectly.

Triangulation: When a Third Person Enters a Two-Person Conflict

One useful concept is triangulation.

Instead of A addressing B directly, A involves C.

For example:

A managing director is unhappy with another managing director.

Instead of addressing the disagreement directly, they speak extensively with senior employees.

Those employees then approach the other managing director.

Now the original conflict has acquired several additional relationships.

Information may become distorted.

Loyalties become relevant.

People begin choosing sides.

A disagreement between two people can become an organizational conflict surprisingly quickly.

Triangulation Is Not Always Manipulation

There are legitimate reasons to involve third parties.

You may need:

• HR
• a board member
• a mediator
• a shareholder
• legal counsel
• a responsible supervisor

because the conflict cannot reasonably be resolved between the original participants alone.

The important questions are:

Why is the third party being involved?

And:

What role are they being asked to play?

There is a difference between:

“We need an independent person to help us clarify this disagreement.”

and:

“Let me tell five people my version so that you enter the next meeting already outnumbered.”

What Might the Pattern Look Like at Work?

There is no single pattern.

Several behaviors deserve attention when they occur repeatedly.

1. Message Carrying

Someone repeatedly tells you what another person thinks.

“He says you are impossible to work with.”

“She wants you to know that this has gone too far.”

Ask yourself:

Why is the original person not communicating directly?

2. Selective Information

A third party approaches you with a strongly framed account of events.

They may know only one side.

Yet they speak as though the facts have already been established.

3. Reputation Shaping

The conflict becomes a story about your character.

Instead of:

“We disagree about decision rights.”

people begin hearing:

“He is difficult.”

“She is unreliable.”

“He cannot handle criticism.”

4. Coalition Building

People are quietly recruited into one side of the conflict.

By the time a formal discussion occurs, positions have already hardened.

5. Information Gathering

A colleague suddenly becomes unusually interested in:

• your plans
• your conversations
• your reactions
• what other people told you

Perhaps the interest is innocent.

Perhaps the information is being passed elsewhere.

Do not assume either conclusion prematurely.

6. Indirect Pressure

Several people separately deliver essentially the same message.

The effect may be:

“Everybody thinks you should give in.”

This can make a disputed position appear like organizational consensus.

7. Procedural Influence

The issue moves into meetings, reporting lines, HR processes, committees, or shareholder discussions in ways that alter the balance of influence.

Sometimes this is appropriate governance.

Sometimes process itself becomes part of the power struggle.

Gossip Can Become Organizational Infrastructure

Gossip is not always malicious.

People use informal conversations to understand organizations.

They exchange warnings.

They interpret ambiguous events.

They build relationships.

Yet gossip can also become an important channel through which a conflict spreads.

A claim is repeated.

Then repeated again.

Eventually:

“Someone told me…”

becomes:

“Everyone knows…”

Repetition can create familiarity without creating evidence.

Narcissism and Organizational Politics

There is research suggesting that narcissistic traits can matter in organizational politics.

Studies of grandiose narcissism have found associations with:

• greater interest in organizational politics
• greater willingness to engage in political behavior
• greater use of influence tactics

Other research has associated higher narcissism with greater willingness to use more aggressive political tactics, including withholding information and undermining competitors.

This is relevant.

It still does not establish the popular claim:

“Narcissists always recruit flying monkeys.”

Research supports certain tendencies at group level. It does not allow you to infer an invisible strategy in a particular person.

Narcissism Is Not One Thing

Research increasingly distinguishes different dimensions of narcissism.

For example, more agentic aspects can involve:

• self-confidence
• ambition
• a desire for admiration

More antagonistic aspects can involve:

• rivalry
• devaluation
• hostility
• competitive status behavior

These dimensions do not produce identical workplace outcomes.

This is another reason broad statements about “the narcissist” often fail to capture reality.

You Do Not Need to Diagnose Anyone

If several people are pressuring you on behalf of an influential colleague, your immediate problem is not:

“Which DSM diagnosis explains this?”

You need to understand:

• what is happening
• who knows what
• which decisions are involved
• who has authority
• which statements can be verified
• which risks need to be managed

Behavior, structure, evidence, and consequences usually give you more useful information than amateur diagnosis.

Do Not Assume the Third Party Is Weak or Stupid

This is another major problem with popular descriptions of “flying monkeys.”

The people involved are often described as:

weak-minded,

morally deficient,

gullible,

or unintelligent.

That is neither necessary nor particularly useful.

Intelligent, experienced people can accept inaccurate narratives.

Why?

Because information is incomplete.

Because trust matters.

Because status matters.

Because incentives matter.

Because relationships matter.

Because all human beings interpret ambiguous events through limited information.

Understanding how someone became involved is usually more useful than insulting their intelligence.

Some Third Parties Are Acting in Good Faith

Imagine someone tells a colleague:

“Karsten has completely excluded me from important decisions.”

The colleague approaches you and says:

“I think you should talk to him. He seems genuinely upset.”

Is that person manipulating you?

Not necessarily.

They may believe they are helping two colleagues resolve a conflict.

This is why your response should begin with information rather than accusation.

Some Third Parties Are Protecting Their Own Position

A colleague may understand the conflict very well and still align strongly with the more powerful person.

Possible reasons include:

• career interests
• financial dependence
• access
• status
• fear of exclusion
• organizational loyalty

That does not automatically make them a manipulated victim.

They may be making a strategic choice.

You do not need to know their complete motivation in order to manage the situation.

Some People Enjoy Organizational Conflict

There are also people who:

• like privileged information
• enjoy being close to power
• gain status from acting as an intermediary
• become important because two other people no longer communicate directly

This creates another reason not to conduct unnecessary conflict through intermediaries.

The messenger can gradually become part of the system that keeps the conflict alive.

Bystanders Matter

Research on workplace bullying illustrates an important broader principle:

third parties are not irrelevant observers.

Bystanders may:

• support the targeted person
• reinforce the aggressor
• remain passive
• respond ambivalently

The surrounding social environment can therefore influence whether problematic workplace behavior expands or loses support.

Again, this is broader than narcissism.

Organizations are social systems. Conflict does not happen in a vacuum.

Do Not Fight a Network With Another Network

You discover that several people have heard a distorted version of events.

The temptation is understandable.

You begin contacting everyone.

You explain your version.

You recruit your own allies.

You forward emails.

You collect stories about the other person.

Soon the organization contains two competing camps.

Now even people who were previously uninvolved are forced to take positions.

Counter-coalition building can turn a manageable conflict into organizational warfare.

Start With the Decision, Not the Drama

Ask:

What business issue is currently at stake?

Perhaps it is:

• a shareholder decision
• a budget
• a client commitment
• a personnel decision
• access to information
• a division of responsibilities
• a strategic disagreement

Return to that issue.

Who decides?

What information is relevant?

What process applies?

Which evidence exists?

The more social noise surrounds a conflict, the more valuable procedural clarity becomes.

Separate Facts From the Social Narrative

Imagine you hear:

“Everybody thinks you blocked the project.”

Do not begin with:

“Who said that?”

Begin with the decision itself.

For example:

“The project required joint approval. I did not approve the current budget because the supplier risk was still unresolved.”

That is concrete.

You can discuss it.

“Everybody thinks…” is social pressure.

It is not evidence.

Ask for Specifics

Vague accusations spread easily.

Specific claims can be examined.

If someone says:

“People are concerned about your behavior.”

you can ask:

“Which behavior specifically?”

If they say:

“You keep undermining the project.”

ask:

“Which decision or action are you referring to?”

Specificity converts reputation stories back into discussable events.

Do Not Defend Yourself Against Every Rumor

A rumor appears.

Your instinct may be to correct it everywhere.

That can accidentally increase its reach.

Ask:

• Who matters for this issue?
• Could the claim affect an important decision?
• Does it need factual correction?
• Is there an appropriate formal channel?
• Would responding create more attention than the claim currently has?

Not every statement deserves equal energy.

Correct consequential misinformation. Avoid becoming a full-time manager of everybody’s opinion about you.

Correct Important False Information Calmly

When misinformation affects decisions, correct it.

For example:

“I have heard that I approved the agreement and later withdrew support. That is inaccurate. The proposal was discussed, but final approval was never given. The relevant emails document that.”

Then stop.

You do not need:

“This proves the entire campaign against me.”

Stay with what you can establish.

Documentation Becomes More Important When Narratives Diverge

If important agreements are repeatedly disputed, create better records.

Depending on the situation, that may include:

• written decision summaries
• meeting minutes
• approval records
• clear responsibilities
• documented deadlines
• formal reporting channels

Documentation is not primarily about proving someone is a narcissist.

It reduces the amount of organizational reality that depends on competing memories and informal stories.

Document Facts, Not Psychological Interpretations

A useful note says:

“On September 14, X approved the expenditure without the second signature required by the agreement.”

A less useful note says:

“Narcissist once again manipulated everybody.”

If your documentation later matters to:

• a board
• HR
• shareholders
• lawyers
• an auditor

observable events will be far more useful than diagnostic language.

Be Deliberate About Information

When you suspect that information is being relayed through informal networks, avoid indiscriminate disclosure.

This does not mean becoming secretive about everything.

It means asking:

Who genuinely needs this information?

And:

What could happen if it is passed on without context?

Professional information boundaries can reduce unnecessary complications.

Do Not Turn Every Question Into an Interrogation

At the same time, excessive suspicion can become self-defeating.

A colleague asks a normal question.

You wonder:

“Who sent you?”

Another person wants clarification.

You assume information gathering.

Soon you treat the entire organization as hostile.

That damages relationships that may have had nothing to do with the original conflict.

Protect information thoughtfully without turning vigilance into universal distrust.

Where Possible, Restore Direct Communication

If someone says:

“He told me that you…”

you can respond:

“That sounds like something the two of us should clarify directly.”

Or:

“I would prefer not to conduct this discussion through intermediaries. Let us include him and resolve the point together.”

This reduces distortion.

It also removes some of the status that comes from being the messenger.

When Direct Communication Is Not Appropriate

Direct conversation is not universally the answer.

Use appropriate formal channels when issues involve:

• harassment
• discrimination
• threats
• serious compliance concerns
• financial misconduct
• legal risk
• formal employment disputes

Communication sparring does not replace qualified legal, HR, compliance, or other professional advice.

Do Not Use the Term “Flying Monkey” in the Meeting

You may use the concept privately to think about a pattern.

I would rarely use the label in an actual professional discussion.

Imagine saying to a colleague:

“You are one of his flying monkeys.”

What useful conversation follows?

Probably very little.

Instead say:

“You are raising a disagreement between the two of us. I would like to understand what information you have and what role you are being asked to play.”

That creates options.

Do Not Diagnose the Person Who Is Influencing Others Either

You may observe:

• coalition building
• information control
• reputation attacks
• pressure through third parties
• selective narratives

Those behaviors deserve attention.

You still do not need to conclude:

“Therefore this person has Narcissistic Personality Disorder.”

Narcissistic traits exist on dimensions.

A clinical diagnosis requires a qualified assessment.

Your professional decisions can be based on behavior without depending on a diagnosis.

Watch for the Shift From Issue to Character

One of the most consequential changes in an organizational conflict occurs when discussion moves from:

“What happened?”

to:

“What kind of person is Karsten?”

Now every new event can be interpreted through the reputation already being created.

If possible, bring the conversation back to:

• specific decisions
• specific agreements
• specific behavior
• specific consequences

Character narratives are difficult to resolve because almost any event can be used to confirm them.

Be Careful With “Everyone”

Words such as:

“everyone”

“the whole team”

“people are saying”

create social pressure.

Ask:

“Who specifically?”

Or:

“Is this your concern, or are you speaking on behalf of someone else?”

This separates the speaker’s own position from claimed collective opinion.

Check Whether Consensus Is Real

Imagine five people appear to agree with a powerful executive.

That might represent genuine agreement.

It might reflect:

• shared information
• hierarchy
• group pressure
• career incentives
• the order in which opinions were expressed

You do not know automatically.

If the decision matters, create conditions in which people can contribute independently.

For example:

collect assessments before the senior person announces their view.

Or ask stakeholders separately which risks they see.

Good decision processes reduce the need to guess whether apparent agreement reflects genuine independent judgment.

Leaders: Do Not Build an Information Court Around Yourself

Senior leaders can unintentionally create a network of intermediaries.

Employees learn:

who receives the leader’s trust,

who carries messages,

who has informal access,

who can influence the leader’s view of other people.

This can become organizationally dangerous.

As a leader, ask:

• Am I encouraging people to speak directly where appropriate?
• Do I routinely form judgments from one person’s account?
• Do some employees gain influence by bringing me information about colleagues?
• Do I verify consequential claims?
• Have I accidentally rewarded gossip?

The person with power has particular responsibility for not turning informal stories into organizational facts without examination.

If Someone Tries to Recruit You Into a Conflict

You may find yourself on the other side of this dynamic.

A colleague says:

“You know what she is like. Can you talk some sense into her?”

Or:

“I need you to tell the board what he has been doing.”

Before agreeing, ask:

• What do I know firsthand?
• What have I only been told?
• Why am I being involved?
• Is there a better direct or formal route?
• Am I being asked to provide facts or loyalty?

You can say:

“I am willing to discuss what I personally observed. I do not want to speak for events I did not witness.”

That is a useful boundary.

Do Not Become a Messenger Without Thinking

Someone asks:

“Could you tell him that…”

Sometimes that is harmless.

Sometimes you are being inserted into a conflict that does not belong to you.

A useful response is:

“Would it be better if you told him directly?”

Or:

“I am happy to help arrange the conversation. I would rather not carry the argument between you.”

If You Manage a Team, Stop Triangular Communication Early

Suppose Employee A complains about Employee B.

Before becoming part of a long private campaign, ask:

“Have you discussed this with B?”

If not, determine whether direct discussion is appropriate.

If you need to intervene as manager, clarify:

• the specific behavior
• the business impact
• what has already been attempted
• what outcome is needed

Do not allow a management role to become an endless delivery service for indirect grievances.

When HR Becomes Involved

Some people immediately view HR as:

an ally

or

an enemy.

Neither assumption is useful.

HR has an organizational role.

Understand:

• which process applies
• what information is requested
• how documentation is handled
• which decisions HR can and cannot make

Stick to specific events.

Avoid turning the discussion into competing amateur diagnoses.

When Shareholders or Boards Become Involved

Conflicts between founders or managing directors can quickly spread upward.

Then reputation, governance, and business interests become intertwined.

Before speaking with shareholders or a board, prepare carefully.

Clarify:

• What decision do they need to make?
• Which facts are documented?
• Which matters are interpretation?
• Which governance provisions apply?
• What outcome are you asking for?

Senior stakeholders usually need a decision-relevant account, not a complete history of every interpersonal injury.

Governance Can Reduce the Power of Informal Alliances

Clear structures matter.

Especially between co-founders, shareholders, and managing directors.

Clarify:

• decision rights
• approval thresholds
• access to information
• reporting
• responsibilities
• deadlock procedures

The clearer the formal structure, the harder it becomes for important business decisions to depend entirely on informal alliances.

→ Narcissistic Co-Founder? Protect the Company Before You Diagnose the Person

Do Not Confuse Popularity With Reliability

A charismatic person may have many supporters.

A difficult person may be correct.

A well-liked executive may distort information.

An unpopular colleague may provide the most accurate analysis.

Social support tells you something about relationships.

It does not automatically tell you who is factually correct.

Important decisions deserve evidence beyond social alignment.

Do Not Confuse Isolation With Proof That You Are Right

The reverse is equally important.

You find yourself alone.

Everyone else appears to disagree.

It can be tempting to think:

“This proves they have all been manipulated.”

It proves nothing of the sort.

Perhaps you are seeing something others have missed.

Perhaps they are influenced by power.

Perhaps your own interpretation is wrong.

Ask:

• What evidence supports my position?
• What evidence supports theirs?
• What would change my mind?
• Which independent source could help clarify the issue?

Independent thinking includes the possibility that you may need to revise your own view.

Do Not Let the Conflict Consume Your Entire Professional Identity

A prolonged organizational conflict can gradually dominate attention.

You start monitoring:

who spoke with whom,

who liked whose message,

who attended which meeting,

who may be “on their side.”

Some of that information may matter.

Much of it may not.

Return repeatedly to:

Which information changes my next decision?

This protects both attention and judgment.

Ten Practical Steps When Third Parties Enter the Conflict

1. Clarify the original issue. Do not let the surrounding politics erase what the conflict is actually about.
2. Separate facts from interpretations.
3. Ask what each third party actually knows.
4. Move communication back toward direct or appropriate formal channels.
5. Correct consequential misinformation with evidence.
6. Document important agreements and decisions.
7. Protect sensitive information without becoming universally suspicious.
8. Avoid counter-gossip and unnecessary coalition building.
9. Clarify decision rights and governance.
10. Get appropriate legal, HR, compliance, or other professional advice when the consequences require it.

What Not to Do

Avoid:

• publicly diagnosing colleagues
• calling people “flying monkeys” to their faces
• launching your own smear campaign
• responding to every rumor
• sharing confidential material indiscriminately to prove your case
• assuming everyone who disagrees has been manipulated
• letting the conflict replace ordinary business priorities

Your aim is not to win the social war. Your aim is to preserve your ability to make sound professional decisions.

When the Pattern Becomes Serious

The situation deserves additional attention when third-party involvement begins affecting:

• your professional reputation
• access to information
• decision authority
• employment
• contracts
• shareholder relationships
• financial interests
• legal or regulatory matters

Then communication strategy alone may be insufficient.

Use the appropriate professional expertise.

Communication preparation can accompany legal or governance advice.

It should not replace it.

Prepare for the Conversation, Not for a Psychological Battle

If an important discussion is ahead, prepare for what is observable.

Clarify:

• What happened?
• What can I document?
• What do I need clarified?
• Who has authority?
• Which claims need correction?
• Which questions should I ask?
• What outcome do I want?
• What will I do if no agreement is possible?

Then rehearse likely pressure.

For example:

“Everyone disagrees with you.”

You might answer:

“That may be. I still want us to examine the specific decision and the information behind it.”

Or:

“You are the only person creating a problem.”

You might answer:

“I am raising one specific concern. Let us look at that concern rather than my popularity.”

The Bottom Line

“Flying monkeys” is a memorable popular term for a real kind of social complication:

third parties becoming part of a conflict and amplifying another person’s influence.

Yet the label can create a new problem if it encourages you to divide everyone into:

victims,

narcissists,

and their henchmen.

Workplaces are usually more complicated.

People may act from:

• loyalty
• incomplete information
• self-interest
• hierarchy
• genuine concern
• political calculation
• independent judgment

So concentrate on what you can establish.

What is being said?

What is being done?

What information is reliable?

Which decision is affected?

Which process should apply?

Which boundary is required?

Do not spend all your energy identifying “flying monkeys.” Understand the network around the conflict well enough to keep making sound decisions inside it.

Dealing With a Difficult Professional Relationship?

If a conflict with a co-founder, shareholder, managing director, senior colleague, or other important professional counterpart has expanded into organizational politics, alliances, reputation issues, or indirect pressure, we can work directly with the real situation.

Depending on what matters, Executive Sparring may include:

• separating facts from interpretations
• mapping stakeholders and interests
• examining power and influence
• clarifying decision rights
• testing assumptions
• preparing difficult questions
• correcting misinformation effectively
• clarifying boundaries
• rehearsing important conversations
• considering options if cooperation remains unreliable

I work primarily with business owners, managing directors, executives, and senior leaders.

In person in Berlin. Online throughout Germany.

→ Executive Sparring

→ Conversation & Negotiation Preparation

→ High-Stakes Communication

→ Fees & Booking

→ Discuss Your Situation

Research Note

“Flying monkeys” is an informal popular-psychology term rather than a formal diagnostic or organizational-psychology construct. Research therefore does not provide a scientific test for identifying a “flying monkey.”

There is, however, relevant research on some of the underlying workplace dynamics.

Studies of grandiose narcissism have found associations with greater engagement in organizational politics and greater willingness to use influence tactics. Research has also linked narcissism with some negative political tactics, including information withholding and undermining competitors.

Other workplace research has found associations between narcissism and workplace gossip, again without establishing that every person high in narcissistic traits behaves in the same way.

Research on workplace bullying also demonstrates that third parties matter: bystanders can defend the targeted person, reinforce problematic behavior, remain passive, or respond ambivalently.

The practical conclusion is therefore not that a narcissist inevitably controls a network of “flying monkeys.” It is that personality, power, organizational politics, information networks, and bystander behavior can interact in ways that deserve careful attention.

About Karsten Noack

I work with business owners, managing directors, executives, and senior leaders on difficult professional relationships, organizational dynamics, important decisions, leadership situations, negotiations, and communication under pressure.

My background combines engineering, management, business consulting, marketing, psychology, communication, and more than 25 years of coaching and consulting work.

→ About Karsten Noack

Help in dealing with narcissists (no legal advice!)

It's urgent? Thanks to an immediate bank transfer, it is also possible to organize sessions at short notice, often even on the same day. In any case, you can orient yourself by reading the list with fees. Typically, a telephone call of 60 minutes is enough. Either you come to me in Berlin or we organize a telephone meeting or use the Internet with a video conferencing system. If you wish professional support for your decision-making, communication, or because you suffer emotionally from narcissists, then we can arrange an appointment.

As much as I would like to - with the large number of requests I receive, I keep the amount of volunteer help at a feasible level.

If you want professional support (in the areas I offer and this does not include any legal advice), then we can make an appointment. Either you come to me in Berlin or we make a telephone session or use the Internet with video support. This has proven to be very successful. Thanks to a real-time bank transfer, it is also possible to book appointments at short notice. We can make an appointment first or even easier and faster; you book your session and as soon as the fee is received, we find the next available appointment.

If it is about the psychological effects, I offer therapeutic help for people suffering from narcissists and coaching for other issues. You can find the fees here. Please note the reduced fees for therapeutic assistance for people suffering from narcissistic abuse.

Not all sufferers have the financial means to do this, I know. You can then at least use the comment function to exchange information with other sufferers. Sometimes I also answer questions there, occasionally even beyond that. I am aware of the suffering that can result from contact with narcissists. However, the day has only 24h, and therefore I ask for an understanding of my procedures. I am aware of the suffering that often results from contact with narcissists. That is why I offer a free telephone consultation every first Monday of the month from 9:00 to 12:00 for initial impulses. Please use exclusively the telephone number +49 (0)30 864 213 65 for this purpose. Calls outside these hours and on other telephone numbers exclusively in the context of the professional support mentioned.

So: Questions that may also interest other people, please ask in the comments. Some topics are of a more private nature and I offer professional support for them. Let's have a direct conversation about this. If you are interested in support, for organizational questions and appointments you can reach me personally best by e-mail (mail@karstennoack.de), conditionally also by phone +49 (0)30 864 213 65., mobile +49 (0)30 864 213 65.

Contact Me for More Information

If you have specific questions or want to know more about how I can help, just ask me directly. For questions that might interest others, please feel free to post them in the comments section below.

Looking for Professional Support?

If you're interested in coaching, training, or consulting, have organizational questions, or would like to schedule an appointment, the best way to reach me is through this contact form (where you can choose whether to provide your personal data) or by email at mail@karstennoack.com. You can find the privacy policy here.

Transparency and Frequently Asked Questions

Transparency is important to me. To help you get started, I've provided answers to frequently asked questions about myself (profile), the services I offer, fees, and the process of getting to know me. If you like what you see, I'd be delighted to work with you.

Articles

P.S.

Have you dealt with toxic people like narcissists and how did you take care of yourself? How can you deal with this form of gaslighting?

Published: May 20, 2020
Author: Karsten Noack
Revision: November 19th, 2024
German version: https://www.karstennoack.de/narzissten-hilfe/