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

A difficult co-founder can become one of the greatest risks to an otherwise promising company. The decisive question is rarely whether you can prove narcissism. It is whether your partnership still produces reliable decisions, clear accountability, and workable trust.

Your co-founder is impressive in a pitch.

Confident with investors.

Ambitious.

Quick to make decisions.

Comfortable taking risks.

At first, these qualities may have been part of the reason you wanted to build a company together.

Then something changes.

Important decisions are made without you.

Agreements are remembered differently afterwards.

Success belongs to your co-founder.

Failure belongs to someone else.

Questions are interpreted as disloyalty.

Employees receive conflicting instructions.

Investors hear a different version of events than you do.

And gradually you find yourself asking:

Am I building a company — or managing my co-founder?

That is the point where the label becomes less important than the structure of the problem.

First: A Difficult Co-Founder Is Not Automatically a Narcissist

Founders often need characteristics that can look narcissistic from the outside.

Confidence.

Ambition.

Optimism.

Persuasiveness.

A willingness to challenge conventional thinking.

Comfort with visibility.

Belief in an idea before other people believe in it.

None of these qualities establishes Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Narcissistic traits exist on a continuum, and a clinical diagnosis requires qualified professional assessment.

For a co-founder relationship, another question is usually more useful:

Which patterns appear when interests diverge, pressure increases, or your co-founder’s status and control are challenged?

Why Narcissistic Traits Can Initially Look Attractive in a Founder

Narcissism in leadership is more complicated than the popular idea that it is simply “bad.”

Research has linked narcissistic leadership with characteristics that can sometimes support entrepreneurship and innovation.

A highly self-confident founder may communicate a bold vision convincingly.

They may tolerate visibility that other people avoid.

They may pursue ambitious opportunities.

They may energize people around an idea.

They may be willing to make unusually bold moves.

This helps explain why the early stages of a partnership can feel exceptionally promising.

Yet qualities that create momentum can create different consequences when:

authority needs to be shared,

feedback becomes uncomfortable,

another founder receives recognition,

the company needs discipline rather than excitement,

or a major decision requires restraint.

The question is less whether a trait is inherently good or bad and more how it affects decisions, relationships, and governance in your particular company.

The Real Test Begins When You Disagree

Almost any co-founder relationship feels easier while both founders want the same thing.

The revealing moments come later.

You disagree about strategy.

One founder wants to raise capital.

The other wants to preserve control.

You disagree about hiring.

Compensation.

A major client.

An investor.

Product direction.

A possible sale.

Suddenly the quality of your partnership becomes visible.

Can both of you disagree and still respect agreed decision processes?

Can your co-founder hear evidence that challenges their position?

Can both founders accept responsibility?

Can credit be shared?

Can a decision go against one founder without turning into a loyalty conflict?

A strong founder relationship needs more than chemistry. It needs the ability to handle conflicting interests without destroying the system around the conflict.

Warning Signs That Deserve Attention

• Unilateral decisions: Important commitments are repeatedly made outside agreed decision structures.
• Moving agreements: What you agreed yesterday acquires a different meaning today.
• Asymmetric accountability: Success is personalized while responsibility for failure moves elsewhere.
• Credit problems: Contributions are minimized, appropriated, or selectively presented.
• Feedback becomes personal: A disagreement about strategy quickly turns into an attack on loyalty, intelligence, or character.
• Different audiences receive different stories: Investors, employees, shareholders, and co-founders hear incompatible versions of the same events.
• Authority expands informally: Your co-founder behaves as though their formal mandate is broader than the agreed one.
• Employees become part of the founder conflict: Team members are recruited into alliances or receive competing instructions.
• Rules become asymmetric: Processes apply strictly to other people and flexibly to the founder.
• Boundaries trigger escalation: Attempts to clarify roles or decision rights repeatedly produce disproportionate conflict.

One incident proves very little.

Recurring patterns across different situations deserve attention.

The Most Important Question Is Not “Are They a Narcissist?”

Suppose you obtain the answer tomorrow.

A specialist tells you with complete certainty:

“Yes. Your co-founder has strongly narcissistic traits.”

What changes on Monday morning?

You still need to decide:

Who can commit the company?

Who controls which information?

Which decisions require both founders?

How are disagreements resolved?

What happens when agreements are breached?

How do investors receive reliable information?

How do you protect employees from competing instructions?

Which decisions require legal advice?

And perhaps eventually:

Can this partnership continue?

The diagnosis may explain something.

The operating system of the company determines what happens next.

Governance Becomes More Important as Trust Declines

High trust allows people to operate with considerable informality.

Low trust makes informality expensive.

This is one of the most important shifts to recognize.

When the founder relationship becomes unreliable, increasingly important questions belong in clear structures.

Decision rights.

Signing authority.

Budgets.

Hiring authority.

Investor communication.

Client commitments.

Access to financial information.

Intellectual property.

Shareholder decisions.

Escalation mechanisms.

Documentation.

The purpose is not bureaucracy for its own sake. The purpose is reducing the number of crucial issues that depend entirely on personal goodwill.

Document Important Decisions

When people repeatedly remember agreements differently, memory becomes a poor governance mechanism.

After an important founder meeting, document what matters.

What was decided?

Who is responsible?

Which authority was granted?

Which deadline applies?

What requires further approval?

Who needs to be informed?

A concise written record can save hours of later conflict.

It also changes the nature of future discussions.

Instead of:

“That is not what I remember.”

you can return to:

“Here is the agreement we documented after the meeting.”

Documentation creates a shared reference point.

Watch What Happens to Information

Founder conflicts become particularly dangerous when information becomes a political resource.

You should understand how important information moves through the company.

Who knows what?

Who controls access?

Which figures can both founders see?

What do investors hear?

What does the management team hear?

Do different people receive different accounts?

Does important information arrive late when it weakens one founder’s position?

If trust in information deteriorates, strengthen verification.

A company cannot make sound decisions when its information system becomes part of the power struggle.

→ Narcissism, Deception, and Reliability in Business

Separate the Founder Conflict From the Business Decision

A common mistake is allowing every business question to become a referendum on the relationship.

You discuss a budget.

Suddenly the topic is respect.

You question a commitment.

The topic becomes loyalty.

You disagree about strategy.

The discussion becomes:

“You have never trusted me.”

This makes decisions extremely difficult.

When possible, return to the professional question:

What needs to be decided?

Which criteria matter?

Which authority applies?

Which information supports the decision?

What are the consequences?

You can acknowledge the relationship dynamic while still refusing to let it replace the business issue.

Do Not Fight for the Label

Telling your co-founder:

“You are a narcissist.”

rarely improves governance.

It changes the conversation from behavior to identity.

Your co-founder can now debate the diagnosis instead of the problem.

A stronger formulation is concrete.

For example:

“We agreed that commitments above this amount require both managing directors. This commitment was made without that approval. We need to clarify how decisions of this type will be handled from now on.”

Now the discussion has an observable structure:

agreement,

behavior,

effect,

future process.

You need clarity about the business behavior more than agreement about the psychological label.

Avoid Diagnosing Motives When Behavior Gives You Enough Information

You may wonder:

“Did they deliberately deceive me?”

“Are they trying to undermine me?”

“Are they threatened by my success?”

“Is this about control?”

Sometimes motives matter.

Frequently you cannot know them with certainty.

You may already know enough from the behavior.

An agreement was breached.

Relevant information was withheld.

A decision exceeded authority.

An employee received conflicting instructions.

An investor received inaccurate information.

Those facts deserve a response regardless of the hidden motive.

Prepare Important Founder Conversations Carefully

Once the relationship is tense, spontaneous conversations can become surprisingly expensive.

Before an important meeting, clarify:

What precisely do you want to achieve?

Which decision needs to be made?

Which facts can you document?

Which issues are interpretations?

Where can you be flexible?

Where does the company require clarity?

Which reactions are predictable?

What will you do if the conversation moves into personal accusations?

Which questions do you want answered?

Which outcome requires further legal, financial, or shareholder action?

Preparation gives you orientation when the emotional intensity rises.

→ High-Stakes Communication

When Feedback Becomes Dangerous

One warning sign deserves particular attention:

What happens to people who bring your co-founder unwelcome information?

If they are dismissed, belittled, excluded, or punished, the organization learns quickly.

People adapt what they report.

Bad news travels more slowly.

Questions become safer.

Reports become more flattering.

The founder receives an increasingly distorted picture of the company.

This turns an interpersonal problem into an organizational risk.

A leadership team needs channels through which important information can travel even when senior people dislike the message.

Be Careful With the “Brilliant Founder” Exception

A particularly successful founder can accumulate unusual freedom.

People tolerate behavior because:

the person brought in the investors,

developed the product,

owns the key relationships,

created the original idea,

or appears indispensable.

Past contribution deserves recognition.

It does not automatically resolve present governance questions.

Ask:

Would we accept this behavior from another executive in the same role?

That question can reveal how much the organization has begun designing exceptions around one personality.

When Investors Admire the Co-Founder You Struggle With

This can be particularly frustrating.

Your co-founder may be excellent in investor meetings.

Confident.

Visionary.

Energetic.

Persuasive.

Your experience inside the company may be completely different.

Both observations can contain truth.

A person can be compelling externally and difficult internally.

A founder can contribute genuine value and simultaneously create serious governance problems.

You strengthen your position by avoiding broad character attacks.

Bring investors and advisers concrete information when appropriate:

decisions,

agreements,

roles,

documented events,

business consequences.

Evidence is generally more persuasive than a psychological diagnosis you cannot establish.

Can You Fix a Narcissistic Co-Founder?

This may be the wrong objective.

You control very little about another adult’s personality.

You have considerably more influence over:

your own decisions,

your communication,

the agreements you accept,

the documentation you create,

the governance structures you support,

the advice you obtain,

and the consequences you are prepared to enforce.

A stronger question is:

What would need to change for this partnership to become professionally workable?

Then make the conditions concrete.

Know When the Problem Has Moved Beyond Communication

Better communication can accomplish a great deal.

It cannot replace governance.

It cannot rewrite shareholder agreements.

It cannot resolve questions of fiduciary responsibility.

It cannot determine legal authority.

It cannot protect intellectual property by itself.

It cannot solve insolvency issues.

And it cannot make an unsafe agreement safe through more elegant wording.

Bring in appropriately qualified legal, tax, financial, or corporate-governance professionals when the situation requires their expertise.

Executive Sparring serves another purpose:

helping you think clearly, understand the interpersonal dynamics, prepare difficult conversations, examine options, and decide how you want to proceed.

When Exit Becomes One of the Options

Not every founder conflict ends in separation.

Some partnerships improve once roles, authority, communication, and consequences become clearer.

Sometimes mediation or restructuring creates a workable arrangement.

Sometimes responsibilities can be separated.

And sometimes the central question becomes:

Can this partnership still serve the company and the people involved?

That is a strategic question as well as a personal one.

Before making a major move, understand:

your legal position,

your financial exposure,

shareholder agreements,

dependencies,

clients,

employees,

intellectual property,

financing,

and the likely consequences of different scenarios.

A rushed exit can create problems.

So can waiting indefinitely for a relationship to become something it has repeatedly failed to become.

If You Are Choosing a Co-Founder Now

The easiest founder conflict to manage is one you recognize before equity, money, employees, and identity make separation complicated.

Spend less time asking whether the other person is charismatic enough.

Watch what happens when you disagree.

How do they respond to boundaries?

Can they change their mind?

How do they describe former business partners?

Can they share credit?

How do they handle mistakes?

Do their stories remain consistent?

How do they behave when somebody with less status challenges them?

How do they respond when you receive more attention?

Discuss difficult scenarios before you need them.

Authority.

Equity.

Compensation.

Hiring.

Firing.

Fundraising.

Expenses.

Deadlocks.

Exit.

Shared enthusiasm starts companies. The ability to handle divergent interests helps partnerships survive.

What Research Suggests

Research on narcissism in entrepreneurship and leadership paints a mixed picture rather than a simple one.

Narcissistic traits can sometimes be associated with charisma, bold vision, innovation, and willingness to pursue ambitious opportunities.

Other research connects higher CEO narcissism with consequential strategic behaviors, including risk-taking and acquisition activity.

Organizational outcomes depend on context, the particular expression of narcissistic traits, and the governance structures surrounding the leader.

This is particularly relevant for founders because their personal characteristics can have unusually direct influence on strategy, culture, and decision-making.

Personality matters. Governance determines how much freedom personality has to shape the company.

The Bottom Line

If you believe your co-founder has strong narcissistic traits, resist the temptation to make the diagnosis your entire strategy.

Look at the operating reality.

Can you rely on agreements?

Can responsibility be shared?

Can both founders receive accurate information?

Can disagreement remain professional?

Are decision rights clear?

Can boundaries be established?

Can the company function without continuously compensating for one person’s behavior?

And perhaps most importantly:

What needs to happen next for you and the company to remain capable of making sound decisions?

The answer may involve communication.

Governance.

Documentation.

Legal advice.

Restructuring.

Or a fundamental decision about the partnership.

Clarity begins when you stop trying to win the diagnosis and start addressing the actual system.

Dealing With a Difficult Co-Founder or Business Partner?

When ownership, relationships, responsibility, and power are intertwined, the next move deserves careful thought.

Executive Sparring can help you:

separate facts from interpretations,

understand the dynamics,

clarify your options,

prepare an important conversation,

test different scenarios,

and decide what deserves to happen next.

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

In person in Berlin. Online throughout Germany.

→ Executive Sparring

→ Dealing With a Difficult Shareholder

→ High-Stakes Communication

→ Fees & Booking

→ Discuss Your Situation

About Karsten Noack

I work with business owners, managing directors, executives, and senior leaders on important decisions, difficult business relationships, shareholder and partner conflicts, negotiations, and high-stakes professional situations.

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

→ About Karsten Noack

Compassionate Support for Those Affected by Narcissists

(Note: This is not legal advice—consult a legal professional for legal issues.)

Understanding the Challenge

Dealing with narcissistic individuals can lead to intense emotional pain, confusion, and exhaustion. I understand that many of you are facing an overwhelming situation, feeling isolated and unsure where to turn. My goal is to provide you with clear, compassionate support to help you regain control and navigate through this challenging time.

Immediate Support and Appointment Options

If you need urgent help, I strive to be available at short notice, often even on the same day. This is possible thanks to immediate bank transfer options. A 60-minute phone call is typically sufficient to address urgent concerns, provide support, and create clarity. You have several options for appointments:

• In-person meetings: Available in Berlin.
• Phone consultations: Flexible and convenient.
• Video sessions: Internet-based video conferencing for a face-to-face experience.

If you are looking for guidance in making decisions, communicating effectively, or managing emotional distress due to narcissistic relationships, I am here to arrange a session that suits your needs.

Booking an Appointment

Due to the high volume of requests, my volunteer assistance must remain limited. However, I am committed to providing professional support—whether you need therapeutic help or coaching (excluding legal advice).

Appointments can be booked:

• In person in Berlin.
• Via telephone or video conferencing.

For your convenience, sessions can be arranged quickly thanks to real-time bank transfers. You may schedule an appointment first or, for even faster service, book directly. Once the fee is received, we will find the next available slot to suit your schedule.

Therapeutic Support and Reduced Fees

If you are experiencing the psychological effects of narcissistic abuse, I offer specialized therapeutic support. My goal is to help you overcome the confusion and pain caused by narcissistic relationships. Additionally, reduced rates are available specifically for therapeutic assistance related to narcissistic abuse, as I recognize the burden these experiences can place on your well-being.

Financial Limitations and Alternative Support

I understand that not everyone has the financial means to afford professional support. In such cases, I invite you to use the comment section as a platform to connect and share experiences with others facing similar challenges. I occasionally provide responses there, offering guidance that may help you move forward.

To further assist, I offer a free initial consultation by phone on the first Monday of each month, from 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM. This is my way of giving back and helping those in need of immediate guidance. To access this free service, please call +49 (0)30 864 213 65. Note that calls outside these hours or to other phone numbers will be handled exclusively as part of professional support.

Questions and Private Concerns

For questions that could benefit others, feel free to ask in the comment section. Sharing these questions helps others understand that they are not alone and provides collective insights. For more private matters, I am available for professional support.

To arrange an appointment, discuss support options, or address organizational questions, please reach out via email at mail@karstennoack.com or better please use the contact form.

A Final Note

Thank you for your understanding regarding my procedures and the limitations I face due to the high volume of requests. Your courage in seeking support is commendable, and I am here to provide guidance, compassion, and clarity on your journey.

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.

Related Articles

• 30 tips for communicating with narcissists. Dealing with narcissists. Too much is too much!
• 17 signs that someone is a manipulator
• Stop it, I hate that: Recognize the 11 most common manipulation techniques

P.S.

What thoughts come to your mind about this topic? Have you encountered narcissists in startups?

Beware of comments!

According to my purpose as a writer, I am responsible for writing and you as a reader are responsible for reading. If you now also write, and I have to read that, you will mess up everything here. Feel encouraged doing just that, I appreciate it!

Articles

This article is a short excerpt from the more comprehensive course materials my clients receive in a group or individual training or coaching.

Published: May 20, 2020
Author: Karsten Noack
Revision: November 19th, 2024
Translation: ./.
German version: https://www.karstennoack.de/narzissten-hilfe/
H:
T: RR
#852

Why Do Narcissistic People Lie? What Research Says — and What Matters at Work

People with strong narcissistic traits may be more willing to distort information when doing so protects status, self-image, influence, or personal advantage. The more useful question in business is often less “Is this person a narcissist?” and more “What can I still rely on?”

Your business partner tells you:

“We agreed on that.”

You remember a very different conversation.

Your co-founder presents your idea as their own.

A senior executive describes a failed project as somebody else’s responsibility.

A commitment suddenly becomes:

“I never promised that.”

And when you produce evidence, the story changes again.

Experiences like these can be profoundly disorienting.

They also create a practical business problem.

How do you work with someone when their version of reality appears to change according to what serves them now?

Do Narcissistic People Lie More?

Research suggests an association between narcissistic traits and some forms of dishonesty.

That deserves careful wording.

It does not mean that every person with narcissistic traits constantly lies.

It does not mean that every lie indicates narcissism.

And it certainly does not allow us to diagnose someone from a disputed conversation.

Research does show that higher levels of grandiose narcissism have been associated with greater willingness to engage in self-interested unethical behavior, including lying and cheating.

Studies have also found links between narcissistic traits and deception used to maintain a favorable self-image, gain advantage, or protect status.

The pattern is therefore more interesting than the simple statement:

“Narcissists lie.”

A more useful question is:

Under which circumstances does distortion become attractive to this person?

Narcissistic Traits and Narcissistic Personality Disorder Are Different

The word “narcissist” is widely used in everyday conversation.

Clinical psychology requires considerably more precision.

Narcissistic traits exist on a continuum.

They can include tendencies such as:

• grandiosity
• entitlement
• status orientation
• a strong need for admiration
• sensitivity to criticism
• self-enhancement
• limited willingness to consider other perspectives

A diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder requires qualified clinical assessment.

In professional life, you usually need something else first:

a clear view of observable behavior.

Which statements are reliable?

Which agreements remain stable?

What happens when responsibility is uncomfortable?

What happens when status is threatened?

What happens when facts contradict the person’s preferred story?

Those questions often matter more for your next decision than a diagnostic label.

Why Might Someone With Strong Narcissistic Traits Distort the Truth?

Different people lie for different reasons.

When strong narcissistic tendencies are involved, several motives can become particularly relevant.

1. Protecting a Preferred Self-Image

Some people need to experience themselves as unusually competent, successful, insightful, or important.

Information that supports this identity is welcome.

Information that threatens it creates tension.

That can encourage distortions such as:

• exaggerating achievements
• minimizing mistakes
• claiming greater responsibility for success
• reducing responsibility for failure
• reinterpreting past events

The function of the distortion may be both interpersonal and internal.

It shapes how other people see the person.

It may also help preserve the story the person tells about themselves.

2. Protecting Status

Truth becomes uncomfortable when it threatens rank or authority.

An executive made the wrong call.

A founder ignored repeated warnings.

A manager promised something they could not deliver.

A business partner overestimated their contribution.

Acknowledging the facts may feel like losing status.

Then a different narrative can become attractive.

Someone else misunderstood.

The circumstances changed.

The information was incomplete.

The team failed to execute.

The agreement supposedly meant something different.

Watch especially carefully when accountability and status collide.

3. Gaining an Advantage

Sometimes deception is straightforwardly instrumental.

The person wants:

• a deal
• money
• authority
• recognition
• a promotion
• control
• support from stakeholders
• a stronger negotiating position

Information can then be selectively presented, exaggerated, concealed, or reframed to improve their position.

This is particularly relevant in negotiations, shareholder conflicts, hiring decisions, partnerships, and internal power struggles.

4. Avoiding Responsibility

Responsibility is easier to accept when it fits your self-image.

It becomes harder when it implies:

“I was wrong.”

“I caused this.”

“I failed to notice something important.”

“Someone else understood this better than I did.”

A self-protective narrative may then move responsibility elsewhere.

Watch for recurring patterns rather than one defensive moment.

5. Controlling How Other People See the Situation

Influence is easier when you control the story.

In organizational conflicts, this may mean presenting different versions to different people.

The investor hears one account.

The management team hears another.

The shareholder receives a third.

The employee at the center of the conflict never hears what is being said elsewhere.

The result is more than dishonesty.

It becomes information management as a form of power.

Not Every Distortion Is a Deliberate Lie

This distinction matters.

People can describe the same situation differently without intentionally deceiving one another.

Memory is imperfect.

Perception is selective.

Interests influence interpretation.

People simplify complex events.

And all of us can remember situations in ways that support our preferred understanding of ourselves.

Therefore, before concluding that someone is lying, consider several possibilities:

• different memories
• different interpretations
• poor communication
• ambiguous agreements
• selective attention
• self-deception
• deliberate deception

The practical response becomes stronger when it is based on evidence rather than mind-reading.

Self-Deception Can Matter Too

A person may communicate something inaccurate and still experience their own version as convincing.

This can make disputes particularly frustrating.

You present facts.

The other person appears completely certain.

You add documentation.

They reinterpret the documentation.

You explain the previous agreement.

The meaning of the agreement changes.

At that point, arguing about whether the person “knows they are lying” may contribute very little.

A more useful question is:

Can this professional relationship still produce reliable agreements and decisions?

Common Forms of Deception in Business

Dishonesty rarely appears only as an obvious false statement.

It can take several forms.

Direct Falsehood

A statement is factually false.

For example:

“The client approved it.”

“The board already agreed.”

“I spoke with them yesterday.”

Omission

Relevant information is withheld.

The facts presented may technically be accurate while the missing information changes their meaning substantially.

Exaggeration

Success becomes larger.

Authority becomes broader.

Support becomes more widespread.

Risk becomes smaller.

Selective Framing

Only the facts that support one interpretation are emphasized.

Everything else disappears from the story.

Revision of Agreements

After the fact, a conversation is described differently from how others understood it.

“That was never the agreement.”

“You misunderstood.”

“I said we would consider it.”

False Attribution

Success is claimed personally.

Failure is attributed elsewhere.

Ideas change ownership.

Warnings are remembered selectively.

Triangulation

Different people receive different stories.

This creates alliances, confusion, and dependence on the person controlling the information.

When Does This Become Gaslighting?

The term “gaslighting” is now used for many disagreements.

That weakens its usefulness.

A factual disagreement is not automatically gaslighting.

Neither is poor memory.

Neither is somebody having a different interpretation.

Gaslighting refers more specifically to a pattern in which a person repeatedly manipulates another person’s perception of reality in ways that can create confusion and self-doubt.

In business, warning signs may include recurring attempts to make you question clearly documented events:

“That meeting never happened that way.”

“Everybody else understood me.”

“You are imagining problems again.”

“You always misunderstand these things.”

“You are too emotional to remember this accurately.”

The essential point is the pattern.

One disagreement tells you little.

Repeated reality disputes combined with power, manipulation, and shifting narratives deserve much closer attention.

Why Blatant Lies Can Be So Disorienting

Subtle deception is easier to understand.

An obviously false statement can be more confusing.

You may think:

“They know that I know.”

“The documents are right there.”

“Three other people were in the meeting.”

“How can they say this with such confidence?”

Confidence can easily be mistaken for truth.

It is better treated as confidence.

A calm voice does not verify a statement.

Anger does not verify a statement.

Certainty does not verify a statement.

Repeated assertion does not verify a statement.

Evidence verifies a statement.

Stop Arguing About Character. Start Managing Reliability.

Suppose you suspect that your co-founder, shareholder, executive colleague, or business partner regularly distorts information.

You may be tempted to say:

“You are a liar.”

Or:

“You are a narcissist.”

Both statements shift the conversation toward identity.

The other person can now defend their character instead of addressing the business issue.

Focus on what can be demonstrated.

For example:

“The written agreement from May assigns this decision to both managing directors. Yesterday the commitment was made without that approval. We need to clarify how decisions of this type will be handled from now on.”

This keeps the conversation where it belongs:

• behavior
• agreement
• responsibility
• consequence
• next step

Seven Ways to Protect Decision Quality

1. Document Important Agreements

After consequential conversations, create a shared written record.

Keep it simple:

• What was decided?
• Who is responsible?
• Which deadline applies?
• What happens next?

A written summary reduces later ambiguity.

2. Separate Facts From Interpretation

Ask:

What can we verify?

What is interpretation?

What remains uncertain?

This distinction becomes particularly valuable when emotions and interests run high.

3. Verify Consequential Claims

When an important decision depends on a claim, verify it independently where appropriate.

This may concern:

• client commitments
• financial information
• contracts
• approval
• deadlines
• stakeholder positions
• technical claims

Trust and verification can coexist.

4. Clarify Decision Rights

Repeated disputes become more dangerous when nobody knows who has authority.

Make roles explicit.

Who decides?

Who needs to be consulted?

Who needs to approve?

Who needs to be informed?

Good governance reduces the power of narrative manipulation.

5. Avoid Endless Reality Debates

Once you have enough information to make the next decision, further argument may add little value.

You do not need universal agreement about the past to create a clear process for the future.

6. Watch Patterns, Not Isolated Incidents

Everyone gets something wrong.

Everyone remembers selectively at times.

Everyone occasionally communicates poorly.

The concern grows when you repeatedly see:

• self-serving revisions
• shifting responsibility
• different stories for different audiences
• agreements that repeatedly change afterward
• attacks on people who produce contradictory evidence

7. Decide What Reliability the Role Requires

The central business question may eventually become:

What level of reliability does this role require — and do we have it?

A minor exaggeration from a peripheral contact has one level of consequence.

Repeated misinformation from a managing director, co-founder, shareholder, or finance leader creates another.

Role and consequence matter.

If You Are Preparing a Difficult Conversation

When reliability is already disputed, prepare carefully.

Before the conversation, clarify:

• What exactly happened?
• Which facts can you document?
• Which part remains interpretation?
• What do you need from the conversation?
• Which decision needs to be made?
• Where are your boundaries?
• Which reactions are predictable?
• How will you respond if the discussion becomes personal?

A useful principle is:

Do not enter the conversation to prove the other person’s personality. Enter it to address the situation.

→ Prepare an Important Conversation or Negotiation

When the Difficult Person Is Your Co-Founder

A co-founder relationship creates special risks.

You may share:

• ownership
• financial commitments
• employees
• clients
• intellectual property
• decision authority
• personal guarantees
• a public reputation

When trust in information begins to deteriorate, the issue quickly becomes larger than communication.

Governance matters.

Contracts matter.

Decision rights matter.

Documentation matters.

And some questions deserve qualified legal, financial, or tax advice.

→ Narcissistic Patterns in a Co-Founder Relationship

When the Difficult Person Is a Leader

A leader’s relationship with truth can affect an entire organization.

Information may travel upward selectively.

Bad news may become dangerous to deliver.

Success may become personalized.

Failure may travel downward.

Employees may begin adapting what they report to what the leader wants to hear.

At that point, the problem extends beyond one person’s honesty.

The organization’s information system itself becomes less reliable.

That can affect strategy, risk management, personnel decisions, client relationships, and governance.

→ Narcissistic Patterns in Leadership

Manipulation and Lying Are Related — Yet Different

A person can manipulate without making a single factually false statement.

They can:

• select information
• create urgency
• use guilt
• control framing
• change the subject
• triangulate
• apply social pressure

This is why focusing exclusively on whether a sentence is technically true may miss the wider dynamic.

Look at how information is being used.

→ Recognize Common Manipulation Techniques

A Question More Useful Than “Why Are They Lying?”

Understanding motives can help.

Yet you may never know precisely why another person said what they said.

Eventually another question becomes more useful:

What changes in my decisions once I know that this information source may be unreliable?

Perhaps you verify more.

Perhaps agreements become written.

Perhaps decision rights become clearer.

Perhaps another person joins important meetings.

Perhaps governance needs to change.

Perhaps trust can be rebuilt.

Perhaps the relationship itself needs reconsideration.

The useful insight is the one that changes your next action.

What Research Suggests

Research on narcissism and dishonesty is more nuanced than the popular idea that “narcissists simply lie all the time.”

Studies have found associations between higher narcissistic traits and greater willingness to engage in some forms of deception and self-interested unethical behavior.

Research also distinguishes narcissism from related traits such as Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Their patterns of deception are not identical.

This matters because personality characteristics influence behavior in interaction with opportunity, incentives, risk, and context.

A personality trait increases our understanding of a pattern. It does not allow us to predict every action of an individual.

The Bottom Line

Why might people with strong narcissistic tendencies lie or distort information?

Possible motives include:

• protecting self-image
• maintaining status
• avoiding responsibility
• gaining advantage
• controlling how others understand a situation

Yet the most important question for you may be more practical.

Can you rely on the information, the agreements, and the person’s accountability when the stakes rise?

When the answer becomes uncertain, respond to what you can observe.

Document.

Verify.

Clarify authority.

Prepare important conversations.

Watch recurring patterns.

And make decisions based on the reliability the situation actually provides.

You do not need a diagnosis to take unreliable behavior seriously.

Dealing With an Unreliable Business Partner, Shareholder, or Executive?

Understanding the pattern may be the first step.

The harder question is often:

What do you do next?

Executive Sparring can help you examine the situation, separate facts from interpretation, clarify your options, and prepare an important conversation or decision.

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

In person in Berlin. Online throughout Germany.

→ Executive Sparring

→ High-Stakes Communication

→ Fees & Booking

→ Discuss Your Situation

About Karsten Noack

I work with executives, business owners, and senior leaders on important decisions, difficult professional relationships, conversations, negotiations, and situations where careful preparation matters.

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

→ About Karsten Noack

Compassionate Support for Those Affected by Narcissists

(Note: This is not legal advice—consult a legal professional for legal issues.)

Understanding the Challenge

Dealing with narcissistic individuals can lead to intense emotional pain, confusion, and exhaustion. I understand that many of you are facing an overwhelming situation, feeling isolated and unsure where to turn. My goal is to provide you with clear, compassionate support to help you regain control and navigate through this challenging time.

Immediate Support and Appointment Options

If you need urgent help, I strive to be available at short notice, often even on the same day. This is possible thanks to immediate bank transfer options. A 60-minute phone call is typically sufficient to address urgent concerns, provide support, and create clarity. You have several options for appointments:

• In-person meetings: Available in Berlin.
• Phone consultations: Flexible and convenient.
• Video sessions: Internet-based video conferencing for a face-to-face experience.

If you are looking for guidance in making decisions, communicating effectively, or managing emotional distress due to narcissistic relationships, I am here to arrange a session that suits your needs.

Booking an Appointment

Due to the high volume of requests, my volunteer assistance must remain limited. However, I am committed to providing professional support—whether you need therapeutic help or coaching (excluding legal advice).

Appointments can be booked:

• In person in Berlin.
• Via telephone or video conferencing.

For your convenience, sessions can be arranged quickly thanks to real-time bank transfers. You may schedule an appointment first or, for even faster service, book directly. Once the fee is received, we will find the next available slot to suit your schedule.

Therapeutic Support and Reduced Fees

If you are experiencing the psychological effects of narcissistic abuse, I offer specialized therapeutic support. My goal is to help you overcome the confusion and pain caused by narcissistic relationships. Additionally, reduced rates are available specifically for therapeutic assistance related to narcissistic abuse, as I recognize the burden these experiences can place on your well-being.

Financial Limitations and Alternative Support

I understand that not everyone has the financial means to afford professional support. In such cases, I invite you to use the comment section as a platform to connect and share experiences with others facing similar challenges. I occasionally provide responses there, offering guidance that may help you move forward.

To further assist, I offer a free initial consultation by phone on the first Monday of each month, from 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM. This is my way of giving back and helping those in need of immediate guidance. To access this free service, please call +49 (0)30 864 213 65. Note that calls outside these hours or to other phone numbers will be handled exclusively as part of professional support.

Questions and Private Concerns

For questions that could benefit others, feel free to ask in the comment section. Sharing these questions helps others understand that they are not alone and provides collective insights. For more private matters, I am available for professional support.

To arrange an appointment, discuss support options, or address organizational questions, please reach out via email at mail@karstennoack.com or better please use the contact form.

A Final Note

Thank you for your understanding regarding my procedures and the limitations I face due to the high volume of requests. Your courage in seeking support is commendable, and I am here to provide guidance, compassion, and clarity on your journey.

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.

Related Articles

• Psychotherapy
• 30 tips for communicating with narcissists. Dealing with narcissists. Too much is too much!
• 17 signs that someone is a manipulator
• Stop it, I hate that: Recognize the 11 most common manipulation techniques
• Professional impact analysis: How are you perceived by other people?

P.S.

Why do narcissists lie so blatantly and so often?​?

Articles

This article is a short excerpt from the more comprehensive course materials my clients receive in a group or individual training or coaching.

Published: May 20, 2020
Author: Karsten Noack
Revision: November 19th, 2024
Translation: ./.
German version: https://www.karstennoack.de/narzissten-hilfe/
H:
T: RR
#852

Setting Boundaries at Work: How to Respond When Someone Repeatedly Crosses the Line

A boundary is not an attempt to control another person.

It clarifies what you will participate in, what conditions you require for cooperation, and what you will do when those conditions are not met.

That distinction becomes particularly important when you are dealing with:

• a difficult business partner
• a co-founder
• a demanding client
• a senior colleague
• a powerful executive
• someone who repeatedly ignores agreements

You may have explained the issue already.

Perhaps several times.

Yet the same pattern continues.

Then the central question changes.

It is no longer only:

“How can I make this person understand?”

It becomes:

“What do I need to do if understanding does not lead to different behavior?”

What Is a Professional Boundary?

In business, a boundary can concern:

• decision authority
• availability
• communication
• responsibilities
• information access
• money
• deadlines
• confidentiality
• respectful conduct
• what you are willing to approve or represent

A boundary might sound like:

“I will not approve expenditures above €50,000 without the agreed documentation.”

Or:

“If this conversation becomes personally insulting, I will end it and we can continue when we can discuss the issue professionally.”

Or:

“Client commitments in my area need my approval before they are communicated externally.”

These statements differ from:

“You need to respect me.”

The latter expresses a legitimate wish.

The former makes the required behavior more visible.

Useful boundaries translate principles into observable conditions.

A Boundary Is Not a Command

This distinction prevents many unnecessary power struggles.

You can say:

“You are not allowed to speak to me like that.”

The other person can still do it.

You cannot directly control their behavior.

You have greater control over your own response.

For example:

“If the conversation becomes personally insulting, I will stop it.”

Now the boundary includes an action that is actually available to you.

The strongest boundaries depend less on forcing another person to comply and more on knowing what you will do if they do not.

Do You Need to Call Someone “Toxic”?

The word toxic is widely used.

It can describe a relationship or environment that repeatedly has harmful effects.

It is not a clinical diagnosis.

And it can become so broad that it stops helping you think clearly.

Instead of asking:

“Is this person toxic?”

ask:

• What exactly are they doing?
• How often does it happen?
• What effect does it have?
• Which agreement is being violated?
• What have I already communicated?
• What changes when I address it?

Specific behavior gives you something to work with. Labels often do not.

And What About Narcissism?

Some boundary problems occur in relationships involving strong narcissistic traits.

Research has linked narcissistic traits with several potentially difficult workplace patterns, including greater workplace incivility under some conditions and higher psychological entitlement.

That does not mean every person who ignores a boundary is narcissistic.

Nor does narcissism tell you automatically what a particular person will do.

You usually do not need a diagnosis in order to respond to:

• repeatedly ignored agreements
• unreliable commitments
• personal attacks
• information withholding
• unauthorized decisions
• persistent pressure

Your professional decisions can be based on behavior, risk, and consequences.

Why Boundaries Become Difficult With Powerful People

It is easy to say:

“Just set a boundary.”

The real situation may contain:

• financial dependency
• hierarchy
• ownership
• career consequences
• important client relationships
• shared investments
• reputation

A boundary with a colleague is different from a boundary with your CEO.

A boundary with a client is different from a boundary with your co-founder.

A boundary between equal managing directors may still be complicated by ownership percentages or informal influence.

Good advice about boundaries needs to take power seriously.

Start With the Behavior

Suppose you say:

“You constantly disrespect my boundaries.”

The conversation can immediately turn into:

“No, I don’t.”

Now you are arguing about an abstraction.

Instead:

“We agreed that client commitments above €100,000 require both managing directors. You gave the client that commitment yesterday without involving me.”

Now the issue is visible.

The more consequential the boundary, the more concrete the language should become.

Separate Preference, Request, Agreement, and Boundary

These are different things.

A Preference

“I prefer meetings in the morning.”

A Request

“Please send me the figures before the meeting.”

An Agreement

“We agreed that the figures will be circulated 48 hours before the meeting.”

A Boundary

“I will not approve the proposal in the meeting unless I have had sufficient time to review the figures.”

Confusion between these categories causes problems.

You may believe you established a boundary when the other person heard only a preference.

Ten Principles for Setting Boundaries at Work

1. Decide What Actually Matters

Not every irritation deserves a boundary.

If everything becomes non-negotiable, cooperation becomes difficult.

Ask:

• Does this affect an important responsibility?
• Does it create material risk?
• Is the pattern recurring?
• Does it undermine an agreement?
• Does it interfere with my ability to do my job?

Use boundaries where something meaningful needs protection.

2. Be Specific

A boundary such as:

“You need to communicate better.”

is difficult to operationalize.

Try:

“Changes to the client proposal need to be discussed before they are sent externally.”

Specificity makes expectations easier to understand and easier to evaluate later.

3. Explain the Relevant Reason

You do not need to justify every personal preference endlessly.

In business, however, relevant reasoning often helps.

For example:

“I need final approval before this goes to the client because I carry responsibility for the commercial terms.”

This gives the boundary professional context.

4. Keep the Language Simple

Long explanations can weaken an important message.

You state the boundary.

Then explain it again.

Then defend it against an objection that has not yet been raised.

Then provide five examples.

The central point disappears.

Instead:

“I am not agreeing to that commitment today. I need the risk assessment first.”

Then stop.

5. Distinguish a Boundary From a Threat

A threat aims primarily to frighten or punish.

A boundary explains the consequence that follows from a condition.

Compare:

“If you do that again, you will regret it.”

with:

“If commitments continue to be made outside our approval process, I will ask the shareholders to clarify decision authority formally.”

The second may still be serious.

It is connected to the problem.

6. Choose Consequences You Can Actually Implement

A consequence you cannot or will not carry out weakens credibility.

Do not announce:

“Then I am leaving the company.”

unless you have thought through what that means.

Possible professional responses might include:

• ending a conversation
• moving communication into writing
• requiring joint approval
• involving the appropriate manager
• using a formal escalation process
• limiting discretionary access
• reconsidering the commercial relationship

The relevant consequence is the one you can responsibly implement.

7. Follow Through

If you repeatedly say:

“I will not continue this conversation if it becomes insulting.”

and then remain for another hour while the insults continue, the practical boundary remains unclear.

Your action completes the communication.

Consistency does not require rigidity.

It requires that your stated limits have some relationship to what you subsequently do.

8. Stay Open to New Information

A boundary is not proof that your interpretation is correct.

Perhaps you misunderstood an agreement.

Perhaps the other person has information you do not have.

Perhaps circumstances genuinely changed.

Listen.

Then decide whether the boundary still applies.

Being clear does not require becoming intellectually inflexible.

9. Document Important Boundaries

For consequential business issues, spoken understanding may not be enough.

Document:

• decision rights
• approval thresholds
• responsibilities
• deadlines
• confidentiality requirements
• agreed escalation routes

This reduces future disputes about what was supposedly agreed.

10. Know When Communication Is No Longer the Main Problem

You may have been clear.

The agreement may be documented.

The behavior continues.

Then another communication technique may not solve the problem.

You may have a:

• governance problem
• performance problem
• contract problem
• leadership problem
• compliance problem
• relationship problem

Do not keep treating a structural problem as though the perfect sentence will fix it.

Boundaries With a Co-Founder or Business Partner

These relationships are particularly difficult because personal trust and structural authority often overlap.

A recurring conflict may involve:

• who can hire
• who can spend
• who can sign contracts
• who communicates with investors
• who owns client relationships
• who makes strategic decisions

If these questions remain informal, every disagreement risks becoming personal.

Clarify the structure.

Good governance turns some interpersonal boundaries into organizational rules.

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

A Boundary Is Stronger When Governance Supports It

Imagine you repeatedly tell your co-founder:

“Please involve me before making major investments.”

That remains partly dependent on goodwill.

Compare this with:

“Investments above €50,000 require the written approval of both managing directors.”

Now the organization helps carry the boundary.

Where possible, move important limits from personal requests into reliable processes.

Boundaries With a Powerful Client

A valuable client can create pressure.

They want:

• another discount
• an unrealistic deadline
• additional work outside the agreement
• constant availability
• a commitment you cannot responsibly make

The fear is obvious:

“If I say no, we may lose the client.”

Perhaps.

Yet repeatedly saying yes can create another risk:

the commercial relationship becomes increasingly unattractive or impossible to deliver.

A professional boundary might sound like:

“We can deliver by May 15 with the current scope. If April 30 is essential, we need to reduce the scope.”

That is both a boundary and an option.

Boundaries With a Senior Executive

Hierarchy requires judgment.

You cannot pretend that a conversation with your CEO is identical to a conversation with a peer.

Yet hierarchy does not eliminate professional limits.

You might say:

“I can prepare the recommendation by tomorrow. I cannot responsibly sign off on the figures until finance has verified them.”

Or:

“I understand that you want this announced today. I cannot state that the project is on schedule because the current data does not support that.”

A professional boundary can protect responsibility as much as personal well-being.

Boundaries Around Availability

Modern work makes availability unusually ambiguous.

Email.

Slack.

WhatsApp.

Calls.

Messages late at night.

A boundary may simply clarify the operating model.

For example:

“For genuine emergencies, call me. Messages sent after 7 PM will normally be handled the next working day.”

The point is not to impose a universal rule.

The point is to remove unnecessary ambiguity.

Boundaries Around Meetings

You can also set boundaries around how decisions are made.

For example:

“I am happy to discuss the proposal today. I will not make the final decision until I have reviewed the financial assumptions.”

Or:

“I am not willing to decide this under a five-minute deadline.”

This is particularly useful when pressure itself becomes part of the decision strategy.

Boundaries Around Personal Attacks

A disagreement about the business can become personal.

You hear:

“You are impossible.”

“You clearly cannot handle leadership.”

“Nobody trusts you.”

You can bring the discussion back to the issue.

For example:

“I am willing to discuss my decision. I am not going to continue a conversation based on personal insults.”

If the attacks continue, pause or end the conversation.

You can discuss difficult behavior without accepting unlimited forms of discussion.

Boundaries Around Interruptions

Repeated interruption can also become a boundary issue.

You might say:

“I want to hear your response. Let me finish this point first.”

If the pattern continues:

“We are repeatedly talking over one another. I want us to take the points one at a time.”

→ How to Handle Interruptions in Important Conversations

Boundaries Around Confidential Information

Sometimes the relevant boundary concerns information.

A colleague may pressure you to share:

• personnel information
• financial information
• client data
• negotiation positions
• board discussions

You do not need a lengthy defense.

“I cannot share that information.”

may be enough.

Where legal, contractual, or regulatory duties apply, those requirements determine the boundary.

When Someone Keeps Testing the Boundary

You state the agreement.

The other person tests it.

You state it again.

Another exception appears.

At some point, stop treating every new incident as though it were the first.

Ask:

What does the repetition tell me?

Perhaps:

• the boundary was unclear
• the person genuinely disagrees with it
• the incentive structure works against it
• the consequence has no credibility
• the person has little interest in respecting the agreement

The appropriate response depends on which explanation fits.

Do Not Keep Explaining Forever

One common reaction to boundary resistance is more explanation.

You hope that if the other person finally understands:

why it matters,

how it affects you,

why your position is reasonable,

then they will cooperate.

Sometimes explanation helps.

Sometimes the person already understands.

They simply want a different outcome.

A disagreement is not always a failure of understanding.

Do Not JADE Yourself Into a Negotiation You Never Intended

You may have encountered the advice not to endlessly:

• justify
• argue
• defend
• explain

The acronym JADE comes from self-help culture rather than a formal scientific framework, yet the underlying observation can be useful.

If you have already communicated a clear, legitimate position, excessive explanation can accidentally turn the boundary into a debate about whether you are entitled to have it.

In professional settings, provide the reasoning that is relevant.

Then return to the decision.

A Boundary Can Be Negotiated

Not every boundary needs to be permanently fixed.

Business requires flexibility.

You might say:

“Normally I need 48 hours to review the documents. For this situation I can do it by tomorrow afternoon.”

You have chosen an exception.

The exception does not automatically eliminate the general rule.

Flexible boundaries are still boundaries when the flexibility is deliberate rather than coerced.

Know What Is Negotiable

Before an important conversation, separate:

Preferences

Things you would like.

Interests

Things that matter and may be satisfied in several ways.

Limits

Things you are not willing or able to accept.

This helps you avoid two mistakes:

• turning every preference into a non-negotiable boundary
• giving away something essential because you never identified it beforehand

Boundaries Are Not Punishment

A professional consequence should serve a purpose.

For example:

If verbal agreements are repeatedly disputed, move important agreements into writing.

If authorization rules are ignored, strengthen approval controls.

If conversations become abusive, change the conditions under which those conversations take place.

If a client repeatedly exceeds scope, clarify commercial terms.

The purpose is to create workable conditions, not to teach another adult a lesson.

Do Not Announce Consequences You Secretly Hope Never to Use

Sometimes people use a dramatic consequence because they hope it will frighten the other person into cooperation.

“If you do that again, I quit.”

“Then the partnership is over.”

“I will take this to the board.”

If the other person tests the statement, you now have a problem.

Before stating a consequence, ask:

Am I prepared to follow through?

What If the Boundary Makes the Other Person Angry?

They may be angry.

That alone does not tell you whether your boundary is appropriate.

At the same time, their anger does not prove that they are narcissistic or manipulative.

People can dislike reasonable limits.

They can also object because your limit is unreasonable.

Listen to the objection.

Then evaluate it.

Another person’s emotional reaction is information. It is not automatically an instruction.

What If You Feel Guilty?

You may feel uncomfortable saying no.

You may worry that you are:

• being difficult
• disappointing someone
• creating conflict
• damaging the relationship

That discomfort does not automatically mean the boundary is wrong.

Nor does it prove the boundary is right.

Return to:

the responsibility,

the agreement,

the consequence,

and your alternatives.

Make the decision from those factors rather than from the temporary wish to make tension disappear.

Boundaries and Manipulation

Some people respond to a limit by changing the subject.

You hear:

“After everything I have done for you…”

“So you clearly don’t trust me.”

“Everyone else manages to work with me.”

“I thought we were partners.”

These statements may express genuine feelings.

They may also shift attention away from the original issue.

You can acknowledge the concern and return to the point.

“I understand that you experience this as a question of trust. I still need both approvals before the expenditure is made.”

You can respond to emotion without abandoning the issue.

→ 11 Manipulation Techniques at Work — and How to Respond

Boundaries and Narcissistic Traits

If the person has strong narcissistic traits, certain situations may become more difficult.

Research has linked narcissism with stronger anger reactions under some conditions involving perceived unfairness or lack of reciprocity and with greater workplace incivility.

Psychological entitlement can also contribute to workplace deviance.

These are group-level associations.

They do not allow you to predict the response of an individual.

The practical implication remains straightforward:

Prepare for observable behavior rather than assuming you know the person’s internal motives.

Do Not Use Boundaries as a Personality Test

You sometimes hear:

“Set a boundary and you will immediately discover who the narcissist is.”

That is too simple.

Many people push back against boundaries.

Perhaps they:

• see the situation differently
• believe your request is unreasonable
• fear losing something
• have different expectations
• are accustomed to another arrangement

Resistance tells you that there is disagreement.

The pattern that follows gives you more information.

Watch What Happens After the Boundary Is Clear

This is more informative.

Does the person:

• ask questions?
• negotiate?
• respect the agreement?
• find legitimate alternatives?
• ignore it?
• punish you indirectly?
• repeatedly reinterpret what was agreed?

Over time, behavior provides evidence about the reliability of the relationship.

One Incident Is Different From a Pattern

People forget.

They misunderstand.

They make poor decisions under pressure.

One boundary violation does not establish a personality pattern.

Pay attention to:

• frequency
• severity
• response to feedback
• willingness to repair
• whether behavior changes afterwards

The response after a problem often tells you more than the problem itself.

When Boundaries Need to Become Systems

This is particularly important in companies.

If the same boundary repeatedly depends on one difficult conversation, ask whether the organization can carry more of the load.

Examples:

• dual signatures
• approval workflows
• documented decision rights
• clear reporting structures
• contractual scope
• access controls
• formal escalation procedures

A process can be more reliable than repeatedly asking someone to respect an informal limit.

When Reduced Contact Is Realistic — and When It Is Not

Popular advice often recommends:

“Just go no contact.”

That may be possible in some private relationships.

Business can be different.

The person may be:

• your co-owner
• your CEO
• a major client
• a board member
• a crucial supplier

You may need continued interaction.

Then instead of simply reducing contact, consider reducing unnecessary exposure.

For example:

• use written communication for important agreements
• keep meetings focused
• clarify agendas
• involve appropriate stakeholders
• separate responsibilities
• reduce unnecessary discretionary access

The objective is not maximum distance. It is workable exposure under the actual conditions.

Sometimes Ending the Relationship Is a Business Option

There are situations in which continued cooperation no longer makes sense.

Perhaps:

• trust is no longer sufficient
• agreements repeatedly fail
• risk has become unacceptable
• the commercial relationship is no longer viable
• governance cannot be repaired

Ending a business relationship can involve substantial consequences.

Prepare carefully.

Where contractual, shareholder, employment, liability, or other legal issues are involved, obtain qualified legal advice.

A boundary can clarify the conditions for staying. Sometimes those conditions reveal that leaving deserves consideration.

Do Not Wait Until You Are Furious

Boundaries become harder to communicate once months of resentment have accumulated.

Then a relatively small event can trigger an enormous response.

Address relevant patterns early enough that you can still discuss them with precision.

Instead of:

“You always do whatever you want!”

you may still be able to say:

“This is the second time this month that a client commitment was made without the approval we agreed on. We need to clarify the process now.”

Five Useful Boundary Sentences

Simple language is often easier to use under pressure.

1. “I am willing to discuss the issue. I am not willing to continue the conversation with personal insults.”

2. “I cannot approve this until I have the information required for the decision.”

3. “That decision falls within my responsibility. Please involve me before committing externally.”

4. “We have discussed this several times. If the agreement cannot be maintained, we need to change the process.”

5. “I understand that you disagree. My position on this point remains the same.”

Boundary or Ultimatum?

Sometimes a genuine decision point exists.

You may need to say:

“I am willing to continue the partnership if joint decision rights are respected. If that is no longer workable for you, we need to discuss another ownership arrangement.”

That is serious.

It may also be accurate.

An ultimatum becomes problematic when it is used as a bluff.

Do not manufacture consequences simply to gain leverage.

Prepare for Pushback

If the boundary changes an established pattern, resistance is possible.

You may hear:

“You never had a problem with this before.”

“You have changed.”

“This is completely unnecessary.”

“So now everything has to be formal?”

You do not need to improvise under pressure.

Prepare your answer.

For example:

“The previous arrangement is no longer reliable enough for the decisions we are making. That is why I want the approval process documented.”

Do Not Overexplain Under Pressure

Pressure can make people talk too much.

You explain.

The other person objects.

You produce another reason.

They challenge that reason.

Eventually you are defending twelve secondary points instead of the original boundary.

Return to the core.

“I understand your argument. I still need the written approval before proceeding.”

When the Conversation Becomes Circular

You may reach a point where neither side has new information.

Then you can say:

“I think we understand each other’s positions. Repeating them will not change the issue. We now need to decide which process applies.”

Or:

“We are not going to resolve this tonight. Let us continue tomorrow with the relevant documents.”

A boundary can also apply to how long an unproductive conversation continues.

Do Not Fight for Respect as an Abstract Concept

You may feel disrespected.

That matters.

In a business conversation, translate it into something concrete where possible.

Instead of:

“You need to show me more respect.”

perhaps:

“When I am responsible for this area, I need to be included before a decision is communicated externally.”

Or:

“If you disagree with my recommendation, challenge the recommendation. Personal comments are not part of this discussion.”

Concrete conditions make respect operational.

What If You Have Contributed to the Pattern?

This question is worth asking.

Perhaps you:

• accepted exceptions repeatedly
• avoided the difficult conversation
• communicated inconsistently
• made threats you did not follow through on
• left responsibilities unclear

Acknowledging your contribution does not transfer responsibility for another person’s behavior to you.

It improves your ability to change what is within your control.

You might say:

“I have allowed this to remain too informal. I want to change that now.”

When the Other Person Calls Your Boundary Controlling

Examine the criticism.

A legitimate boundary governs primarily your own participation, responsibility, or conditions for cooperation.

Control attempts go further and try to dictate another adult’s legitimate choices.

Compare:

“You are not allowed to work with that supplier.”

with:

“I will not approve that supplier under the current due-diligence conditions.”

Depending on your role, either statement may or may not be appropriate.

The important question is:

What authority do you actually have?

Authority Matters

A manager can legitimately set some conditions that a peer cannot.

A board may set conditions for management.

A shareholder agreement may define rights that personal preference cannot override.

A client contract may specify responsibilities.

Professional boundaries therefore operate inside:

• roles
• contracts
• law
• governance
• organizational authority

“My boundary” does not automatically override another person’s legitimate rights or responsibilities.

When Formal Advice Is Needed

If the situation involves:

• employment law
• shareholder rights
• directors’ duties
• harassment
• discrimination
• compliance
• financial misconduct
• contractual obligations
• personal safety

communication coaching is not a substitute for the relevant professional advice or formal organizational processes.

You may need legal, HR, compliance, security, or other specialist expertise.

Communication preparation can complement that expertise.

Ten Questions Before You Set an Important Boundary

1. What exactly is happening?
2. What part of the situation can I actually control?
3. Which responsibility, agreement, or interest am I protecting?
4. What do I want the other person to understand?
5. What am I asking for?
6. What is negotiable?
7. What is not?
8. What will I do if the pattern continues?
9. Am I genuinely prepared to do that?
10. Does this require a conversation, a process change, or both?

The Bottom Line

Setting boundaries at work is not about winning a power struggle.

It is not about controlling another person.

And it does not require deciding whether someone is “toxic” or narcissistic first.

A professional boundary clarifies:

• what matters
• what you require
• what you are responsible for
• what you will participate in
• what happens when an important condition is not met

Be specific.

Make the boundary realistic.

Connect it to the actual business issue.

Follow through when necessary.

And when the same boundary needs to be defended repeatedly, ask whether the problem now requires a different structure rather than another conversation.

A useful boundary does not control the other person. It clarifies your own next move.

Dealing With a Difficult Business Relationship?

If you are dealing with a co-founder, shareholder, managing director, senior colleague, client, or other important professional counterpart who repeatedly crosses important limits or disregards agreements, we can work directly with the real situation.

Depending on what matters, Executive Sparring may include:

• clarifying the actual issue
• separating behavior from interpretation
• identifying what is negotiable
• clarifying responsibilities and decision rights
• examining power dynamics
• developing appropriate boundaries and consequences
• preparing difficult language and questions
• anticipating resistance
• rehearsing the conversation
• considering your options if the pattern continues

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

“Toxic person” is an informal description rather than a clinical category. Research therefore does not provide a scientific test for identifying a “toxic person.”

There is, however, substantial research on specific workplace behaviors such as incivility, interpersonal mistreatment, entitlement, and counterproductive behavior.

A large meta-analysis covering 253 independent samples from 219 studies found that workplace incivility is associated with a range of negative affective, health-related, social, and behavioral outcomes.

→ Meta-Analysis of 20 Years of Workplace Incivility Research

A more recent review describes workplace incivility as a widespread workplace stressor with relevance for both employee well-being and organizational effectiveness.

→ Workplace Incivility: Annual Review

Research also suggests relationships between narcissistic traits, psychological entitlement, and some forms of uncivil or counterproductive workplace behavior. These are statistical associations at group level, not a diagnostic method for judging an individual colleague.

→ Narcissism, Anger, and Workplace Incivility

The practical implication is straightforward: focus on observable behavior, organizational conditions, and workable responses rather than relying on broad personality labels.

About Karsten Noack

I work with business owners, managing directors, executives, and senior leaders on difficult professional relationships, important decisions, leadership situations, negotiations, boundaries, 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

Compassionate Support for Those Affected by Narcissists

(Note: This is not legal advice—consult a legal professional for legal issues.)

Understanding the Challenge

Dealing with narcissistic individuals can lead to intense emotional pain, confusion, and exhaustion. I understand that many of you are facing an overwhelming situation, feeling isolated and unsure where to turn. My goal is to provide you with clear, compassionate support to help you regain control and navigate through this challenging time.

Immediate Support and Appointment Options

If you need urgent help, I strive to be available at short notice, often even on the same day. This is possible thanks to immediate bank transfer options. A 60-minute phone call is typically sufficient to address urgent concerns, provide support, and create clarity. You have several options for appointments:

• In-person meetings: Available in Berlin.
• Phone consultations: Flexible and convenient.
• Video sessions: Internet-based video conferencing for a face-to-face experience.

If you are looking for guidance in making decisions, communicating effectively, or managing emotional distress due to narcissistic relationships, I am here to arrange a session that suits your needs.

Booking an Appointment

Due to the high volume of requests, my volunteer assistance must remain limited. However, I am committed to providing professional support—whether you need therapeutic help or coaching (excluding legal advice).

Appointments can be booked:

• In person in Berlin.
• Via telephone or video conferencing.

For your convenience, sessions can be arranged quickly thanks to real-time bank transfers. You may schedule an appointment first or, for even faster service, book directly. Once the fee is received, we will find the next available slot to suit your schedule.

Therapeutic Support and Reduced Fees

If you are experiencing the psychological effects of narcissistic abuse, I offer specialized therapeutic support. My goal is to help you overcome the confusion and pain caused by narcissistic relationships. Additionally, reduced rates are available specifically for therapeutic assistance related to narcissistic abuse, as I recognize the burden these experiences can place on your well-being.

Financial Limitations and Alternative Support

I understand that not everyone has the financial means to afford professional support. In such cases, I invite you to use the comment section as a platform to connect and share experiences with others facing similar challenges. I occasionally provide responses there, offering guidance that may help you move forward.

To further assist, I offer a free initial consultation by phone on the first Monday of each month, from 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM. This is my way of giving back and helping those in need of immediate guidance. To access this free service, please call +49 (0)30 864 213 65. Note that calls outside these hours or to other phone numbers will be handled exclusively as part of professional support.

Questions and Private Concerns

For questions that could benefit others, feel free to ask in the comment section. Sharing these questions helps others understand that they are not alone and provides collective insights. For more private matters, I am available for professional support.

To arrange an appointment, discuss support options, or address organizational questions, please reach out via email at mail@karstennoack.com or better please use the contact form.

A Final Note

Thank you for your understanding regarding my procedures and the limitations I face due to the high volume of requests. Your courage in seeking support is commendable, and I am here to provide guidance, compassion, and clarity on your journey.

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.

P.S.

Have you had to deal with toxic people and how did you take care of yourself?

Articles

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