# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Let me paint a picture for you. The average member of today's society has become immersed in technology, navigating life behind the confines of computers and smartphones, and learning more and more how to disregard reality. Not only that, we have developed an ability to sit in a crowded room and mentally "check-out" unaware of what is going on around us, our attention captivated by the digital device in front of us. This is how we communicate in the 21 st century.

Advances in technology and social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat, have substantially altered the way humans interact. In a sense, innovative technologies have made our lives easier, allowing us to connect and build relationships with people from all over the world, and enabling companies to run more efficiently. On the other hand, information technologies may be interfering with our ability to learn effective social skills that are necessary for navigating healthy relationships. In essence, e-mail, texting, and social media provide the perfect platform for people to hide behind the "masks" of modern technology.

"Man is least himself when he walks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth." ~ Oscar Wilde

Research out of Harvard University has claimed that successful college graduates must possess a ratio of 80% emotional-social intelligence (ESI) to 20% book smarts. This poses a major problem for modern society, as recent studies have found that today's college graduates are less empathetic than college students from the 1980's and 90's. Researchers at the University of Michigan conducted a meta-analysis to assess data on 14,000 college students over the past thirty years and found that today's college students are about 40% less empathetic than their older generational counterparts. Another of 16,500 college students between 1982 and 2006, found that college students today are more narcissistic than previous generations. These studies go hand in hand, as narcissists lack empathy or emotional warmth, are more dishonest and are more likely to have short-lived romantic relationships. In yet another study conducted of 140 students enrolled at Stanford University found that the students demonstrated an inability to accurately gauge other's happiness even when they were evaluating the moods of those closest to them such as friends, roommates and significant others. It has been speculated that an increase in the use of technology and social media are contributing factors to the decreasing rates of empathy and increased narcissism among younger generations.

This poses a real and significant problem for younger generations who reportedly prefer texting over face-to-face communication. The same holds true for many adults who find it easier to communicate online, choosing their devices over in-person meetings. Furthermore, more and more people are choosing to work remotely providing even less opportunity to socially engage with others face-to-face, thus promoting a more solitary lifestyle.

In a world of increased narcissism and a decreased capacity to effectively read people, how can we discern genuine, authentic people from narcissistic manipulators? Even more, how can we challenge our perceptions and not automatically believe the artificially perfected information that is presented in our newsfeeds?

"It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see." ~Henry David Thoreau

The following is a list of characteristics of authentic people derived from research and my own personal experiences as a psychotherapist in studying human behavior.

" Not false or copied; genuine; real; representing one's true nature or beliefs; true to oneself or to the person identified."

12 Key Traits of Highly Authentic People:

1. Their Words and Actions Are Congruent. Authentic people demonstrate a high level of congruence between their internal feelings and outward displays of emotion and behaviors; demonstrating consistency across all channels. By maintaining congruence, authentic people live in direct accordance with their dreams, beliefs, values, mission, and goals. Psychologist Carl Rogers described the congruent individual as "genuine, real, integrated, whole, and transparent," whereas a non-congruent person "tries to impress, play a role, puts up a front, and hides behind a facade."

2. They Are Transparent, Honest, and Assertive. Authentic people live by the motto, "What you see is what you get." They tell and live their truth even when it is difficult to do so. Whether it's in person or online, authentic people do not pretend to be someone or something they are not in order to fit in or gain the approval of others. Because authentic people have a strong sense of self, they do not perceive criticism as a personal attack and avoidpassive-aggressive or manipulative communication styles at all costs. Instead, they are able to objectively evaluate negative and constructive feedback, identify what works, put it into practice, and leave the rest behind without developing hard feelings towards others.

3. They Demonstrate Reciprocity in Relationships. Authentic people know the importance of developing reciprocal relationships that are built on honesty, compassion, and mutual respect. They understand the reward-cost balance in relationships and because they are highly self-aware and confident, are generous with their own knowledge and resources. They do not hold information back for fear that others will take advantage or steal their ideas. In fact, they believe that other's success is their success.

4. They Are Open-Minded. Authentic people valuetrust, faith, and acceptance. Because they are open-minded, they are willing to entertain new thoughts and ideas that may challenge their own beliefs. Authentic people live by a code of values and morals; however, they are more than willing to listen to the opinions of others and are open to learning from their mistakes.

5. They Make You Feel at Ease. Authentic people wholeheartedly accept other people for who they are. Their lack of judgment and open-minded nature of others make them approachable both in and out of the workplace. In general, authentic people exude a genuine presence that puts others at ease, leading people to naturally gravitate toward them.

6. They Are Not Superficial. Authentic people are who they are and because they are confident and self-assured, do not feel the need to make everyone like them. Because authentic people do not worry about being liked or being in the spotlight, they are willing to go against the grain and make unpopular decisions when needed.

7. They Are Not Swayed by Material Objects. Authentic people do not base their happiness off what they have or do not have. Instead, they find happiness from within and from the simpler pleasures in life. Authentic people find that having meaningful experiences and strong bonds with others make life worth living. They focus on the lives they have touched, rather than how much money or material items they have acquired.

8. They Take Personal Responsibility. Authentic people hold themselves accountable for their words, decisions, and actions, despite the outcome. They are empowered to admit to failures and do not shift blame for their own wrongdoings.They know their weaknesses and mistakes and focus on taking corrective action in the face of failure.

9. They Cultivate Meaningful Relationships. Authentic people live by the old adage, "You are the average of the five closest people you surround yourself with." Instead of hanging around others who are disingenuous, authentic people choose to surround themselves with people who share the same values and morals that they do. They focus on developing long-lasting relationships with others built on trust and mutual respect. After all, for the authentic person, it's not about how many friends they have on social media, it's about being with great people who will build them up and make them a better person.

10. They Are Not Driven by Ego. Authentic people are secure, sincere, and have a strong sense of self. This allows them to lead from their heart and not seek validation from others. Authentic people do not make decisions based on their egos and do not need admiration from others in order to feel good about themselves. Likewise, they don't seek the limelight or try to take credit for other people's accomplishments. Authentic people have healthy egos, which allows them to be secure and confident. However, they also have realistic perceptions of reality and do not exhibit blind confidence in the face of challenging evidence.

11. They Have Strong Character. Authentic people say what they mean, do not make promises that they cannot keep, and always maintain a sense of integrity in their interactions with others. Authentic people live by their values, are consistent, and do not need other's approval to feel good about themselves. They stick to their principles and are not easily swayed by superficialities.

12. They Live in the Moment and Create Their Own Paths. Finally, authentic people demonstrate and are able to live in the present moment in a thoughtful,way. They do not allow the past to get in the way of their future. Authentic people tend to have fewer worries about their ability to get what they want from life. They stick to what they believe and are not swayed by undue criticism of others. Authentic people follow their own internal compasses, using their principles and values as a guiding force.

Don't Be Fooled by Smoke and Mirrors: 12 Traits of Truly Authentic People

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Kristi Tackett-Newburg, Ph.D., LIMHP, CPC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Don't Be Fooled by Smoke and Mirrors: 12 Traits of Truly Authentic People

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Let me paint a picture for you. The average member of today's society has become immersed in technology, navigating life behind the confines of computers and smartphones, and learning more and more how to disregard reality. Not only that, we...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you're subscribing to the old adage of "grin and bear it" "keeping smiling" or "chin up" to mask unwanted negative emotions, you're not doing yourself any favors, or fooling anyone else for that matter - science shows us homo sapiens are not that easily fooled.

Researchers say that over time, putting on a fake smile can actually cause people to associate smiling with feeling unhappy, an internal cognitive dissonance, causing not only temporary confusion, but a sense of uneasiness. The better option that is recommended is that people should instead forgo a smile until whatever negative emotion they're feeling is resolved or subsided.

We are always taught to never wear our hearts on our sleeves, be it in a professional setting like the workplace, or in one's personal life, although it is more forgiving in the latter area. Maybe society has it all wrong. Maybe we shouldn't be overly concerned with social decorum. But is that the healthiest route to take?

Perhaps it is best to give into our emotions every once in a while, not only in an attempt to appear sincere and not disingenuous to others, but more importantly to appear that way to ourselves. Not doing so can give way to a whole gamut of negative emotions down the road like frustration, denial, anger, and even resentment.

Perhaps the only way of letting go, although not always convenient, or politically correct is by being true to our emotions. Not doing so might be a true disservice. That being said, of course there is a time and place for everything so crying at work because you did not get the promotion you deserved might be an ill conceived idea.

"Smiling by itself does not increase happiness or well-being," one of the researchers writes in the study. For the study, published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, researchers conducted three experiments in which they asked people a range of questions, including how happy they are with their lives, how much they smiled that day, whether they thought people more often smile to feel good or to try to feel good, and in which scenarios they recall smiling from happiness.

They concluded that those who smile when happy often feel better as a result, while those who smile when they're not happy often feel worse.

So who should smile as much as possible and who shouldn't?

People who smile frequently because of their naturally cheerful personality or disposition should feel free to just keep smiling, as this may indeed make them feel better. However, people who don't naturally grin should remember that, for them, a smile is likely just "an attempt to become happy," one researcher noted, and in practice, "people can think about their own beliefs about smiling, see how they feel about how frequently they smile and adapt either their beliefs or their behaviors to make themselves feel better," he said.

Bottom line, researchers note that it seems to be best to find your underlying motivation for smiling to begin with, and subsequently strive to stay true to yourself and to your emotions at least most of the time. That might indeed be the healthiest prescription of all with minimal unwanted lingering side effects.

Hope this advice puts a grin on your face. Or not.

Source: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

The Sad Truth about Your Smile

Related Articles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you're subscribing to the old adage of "grin and bear it" "keeping smiling" or "chin up" to mask unwanted negative emotions, you're not doing yourself any favors, or fooling anyone else for that matter -- science shows us homo sapiens are not that easily fooled.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's so frustrating. It's mind-boggling. It's anger-provoking. It's disingenuous. Passive-aggressive behavior is all of these things and more. So why do good people resort to such relationship-damaging behavior? And why is it so hard for them to change?

Here are three reasons why passive-aggressive behavior continues to thrive:

1. People have learned to express opposition indirectly.
It's not unusual for kids to be passive-aggressive when asked to do something they don't want to do. When a parent asks, "Did you do your homework?" they could say
"No, stop pestering me, I hate homework," but then they'd be subject to a barrage of disciplinary lectures. It's so much easier to say, "I'll get to it in a minute, Ma." or "Don't worry. I'll take care of it as soon as I finish this program." On occasion, these responses may be true. But if the kid is using them to get a parent off his back, he's honing his passive-aggressive skills.

2. It's considered "good" to squash anger and resentment.
Hide your angry feelings. Don't feel resentful. Put a smile on your face. From a young age, we're taught to express our negative feelings in socially acceptable ways. It's not a bad message, but some people take it too far. Rather than say what they mean and mean what they say, they say what they think others want them to say. The trouble begins when their actions don't fall in line with their words: "Yes, hon, I'll take care of cleaning up this mess." "Yes, I said I'd do it." "Yes, I'll do it shortly; I'm busy now." "Get off my back, will you? I'll do it in my own damn time, not yours."
Passive-aggressive behavior often begins with a "yes" and a "no problem," ending up with endless excuses and angry blowups.

3. Passive-aggressive people often play the victim.
If you're part of a family, work group, or sports team and don't take care of your responsibilities in a timely way, others will be annoyed with you. Rather than owning up to your obligations or renegotiating your responsibilities, the passive-aggressive approach is to view yourself as being persecuted by others: "Why do I need to take out the garbage?" "These rules are ridiculous; the coach doesn't know what the hell he's talking about." Rather than working as part of the team, you keep yourself apart from the team, and wonder why you feel so alienated.
Few passive-aggressive people know much about conflict resolution skills. Hence, they just keep on doing what they've always been doing. Resentment and rancor keep ruining relationship after relationship. Too bad. It doesn't have to be this way.

Many people believe that the only alternative to passive-aggressive behavior is being nice and giving in to what others want. Not true. Being assertive is a much healthier alternative.

What does being assertive mean? Here are 5 key points:

Know your own mind. Be active vs. reactive. Reflect on what you're willing to do. Weigh in on what decision you want to make before you're influenced by others.

Reflect on your options. At times, you may choose to modify your plans to accommodate another; other times, you won't. Make a choice rather than believing you're powerless. Your choice does not have to always be his way or your way. Be creative; suggest a third option or a blending of both of your ideas.

Reflect on your obligations. Things don't get done magically. They get done because people, often in groups, work toward a common goal. Hence, be an active part of your group rather than just waiting for others to tell you what to do.

Learn how to say no graciously. Saying no can help you create limits, establish priorities, build character and make your yes more meaningful. You can respond with a polite no, a no with an alternative suggestion, or a no with an explanation.

Become more self-confident.Of course, this is easier said than done. But the more assertive you become, the more confident you will feel. The more confident you feel, the more you'll be able to speak your mind, share your feelings and express your opinions in a comfortable and carefree manner.

©2015
Grumpy woman photo available from Shutterstock
Learning to be Assertive Instead of Passive-Aggressive

Related Articles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learning to be Assertive Instead of Passive-Aggressive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's so frustrating. It's mind-boggling. It's anger-provoking. It's disingenuous. Passive-aggressive behavior is all of these things and more. So why do good people resort to such relationship-damaging behavior? And why is it so hard for them to change? Here are three reasons why passive-aggressive behavior continues to thrive: People have learned to express opposition indirectly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why is apologizing so difficult? Saying "I was wrong, I made a mistake, I'm sorry" is more painful than root canal therapy for some people.

As a psychotherapist, I've found that our ability to apologize is directly related to the shame we carry. Burdened with a deeply ingrained sense of being flawed or defective, we mobilize to avoid being flooded by a debilitating shame.

When we recognize that we've done or said something offensive or hurtful, we may notice an uncomfortable feeling inside. We realize we've broken trust and done some damage.

Our response to violating someone's sensibilities may go in three possible directions:

1. We Don't Care

When our personality structure is rigid and hardened, we don't register others' pain. Having cut ourselves off from our own painful and difficult feelings, we have a blind spot to human suffering.

It can be maddening to be involved with someone who has been so driven by shame that they distance themselves from you. They don't see you because all they know is that their survival depends on keeping shame at bay. If they were to allow any hint of shame to enter their awareness, they'd be so paralyzed by it that they could no longer function - or at least that's the belief they hold. They don't know how to take responsibility without it becoming painfully fused with self-blame and shame.

Sociopaths do not allow themselves to experience empathy for others. They are so shame-bound, perhaps due to early trauma, that they have no shame (they've become numb to it). They don't notice how they affect others. Apart from some possible fleeting moments, they don't care about anyone's feelings.

2. We Care About Our Image

It doesn't take being psychic to recognize when someone is unhappy with us. Evoking a person's tears or tirades tells us that we've stepped on their toes. If this is a friend or partner we care about or a political constituency we don't want to alienate, we might realize that need to muster up some kind of apology to repair the damage and get the unpleasant matter behind us.

It is maddening to get no apology from a person who has hurt us. But it can be even more upsetting - or decidedly confusing - to receive an apology that isn't really an apology. For example, we hurl harsh words or cheat on our partner and witness the damage, we realize that some apology is necessary to repair the injury.

An insincere apology would be something like:

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I'm sorry if I offended you.

I'm sorry, but aren't you being too sensitive?

Such non-apologies miss the point. They are weak attempts to head off being blamed and criticized. We try to "make nice" but our heart isn't into it. We haven't allowed the person's hurt to register in our heart. We haven't allowed ourselves to be genuinely affected by the pain we've generated in their lives.

These pseudo-apologies are strategies that keep us well-insulated from the healthy shame of realizing that we hurt someone or messed up, which we all do from time to time (if not often); it's simply part of being human.

Hard-driving politicians are notorious for offering insincere apologies. They're not devoted to being real; they're invested in looking good. Protecting their carefully honed image is of paramount importance.

For people who are attached to their self-image, it's a quandary when they mess up. If they admit their mistakes, they might look bad. They may make the calculation that it's best to cover it up and push onward. However, if they don't acknowledge their mistake, they might also look bad; they may be viewed as arrogant and self-centered, which might also damage the false image they've been promoting.

So here's the curious dilemma for an ego- and image-driven person: how to respond when making a mistake? One seemingly elegant solution is to offer what seems like an apology, but isn't really one: "I apologize if I offended you." This is a crazy-making statement. It comes from our head. We didn't put our heart on the line; we protected our vulnerability.

The person receiving such an "apology" might respond: You did offend me. You hurt me. Your antiseptic apology doesn't really reach me. I don't get any sense that you've been affected by how I feel."

An expedient "apology" is insincere because we're protecting ourselves from heartfelt human relating. We don't want to get our hands dirty. We casually flip a comment that seems like it will satisfy the injured party, but it won't. And we're likely to repeat the mistake because we refuse to reflect deeply on the matter and make a real change in our behavior.

A Sincere Apology

A genuine apology is more than mouthing the words. It's registering the damage we've done. When our words, our body language, and our tone of voice derive from a deep recognition of the pain we've caused, true healing and forgiveness become possible. We might say something like, "I'm really sorry I did that" or "I can see how much pain I caused you and I feel bad about that" rather than a more cold, impersonal, and half-hearted, "I'm sorry if you were offended by that."

"Sorry" is related to the word "sorrow." A sincere apology includes feeling sorrow or remorse for our actions.

Apologizing doesn't mean berating ourselves or being paralyzed by shame. But allowing ourselves to experience a light and fleeting shame can get our attention. It's natural to feel at least a little bad when we've hurt someone - and perhaps very bad (at least for a time) if we're hurt them really badly.

If we can let go of our self-image, we might discover that it can actually feel good to offer a heartfelt apology. It connects us with the person we've hurt. And it may surprise us that our image actually improves if we display a sincerity that derives not from some calculation or manipulation, but from the depths of our human heart.

When an Apology Is Not an Apology

Related Articles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why is apologizing so difficult? Saying "I was wrong, I made a mistake, I'm sorry" is more painful than root canal therapy for some people. As a psychotherapist, I've found that our ability to apologize is directly related to the shame we carry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Critical people make rude comments, judge our decisions, talk at length about what we're doing wrong or rarely have anything nice to say. One way to deal with them is to stop being with them altogether.

But this isn't easy to do when the critical person is your boss, colleague, family member or your partner's father. In other words, you can't just stop seeing them for the rest of your life. And in some cases you might have to interact with them on a daily basis.

The problem with being around critical people is that they're draining, said Ashley Thorn, a licensed marriage and family therapist in Salt Lake City, Utah. Thorn works with individuals, couples, and families in helping them improve their relationships.

"[W]e can only process so much negative emotion and take so many hits to our self-esteem before we start to become angry, depressed, anxious, etc."

But the good news - and an important fact to remember - is that we always have a choice. "[W]hether or not a person is difficult for us to deal with depends largely on how we choose to react to them," Thorn said.

One choice that doesn't work is getting defensive, even though a) you really want to and b) it feels all-too natural. But this only sparks arguments, she said.

"Critical people are often not aware that they are being critical, because their criticisms are a projection of their own issues onto someone else. So, if they're already unwilling to engage in self-awareness, chances are you lashing out at them is not going to change that."

It's also not helpful to stay silent, she said. That's because a critical person may misinterpret your silence as acceptance, and "criticize even more because they assume they're being helpful."

What is helpful?

Thorn shared these valuable strategies.
Be assertive.
Being assertive means maintaining respect for the other person while standing up for yourself, Thorn said. That is, you don't blame the person or demean them, she said. Instead, you clearly and specifically communicate that their criticism is hurtful to you, or that you don't appreciate it.

The key is to be firm but kind, she said. Thorn likened it to dealing with young kids: To set a limit with a 3-year-old, you don't yell or belittle them. Instead, you're clear and direct, and you can always end with mentioning what they mean to you, she said.

Thorn shared these examples:

Your in-laws won't stop discussing how you and your spouse should handle your finances. You tell them: "I appreciate that you're obviously concerned about our well-being, and that we have you here for support and advice when we need it. Nonetheless, the way we manage our money is really up to us. And we will make our decisions based on what is important to us, and what we feel is best for our family."
Back up words with behavior.
Your colleague regularly comments on your clothes. You say: "I understand that you may think what you're saying is funny or in jest. But I want you to know that it is hurtful. And because I want to maintain a good working relationship with you, I'd appreciate if you'd stop making comments about the way I dress."

Your partner keeps telling you that you aren't romantic, you never listen to them and you just don't care. You tell them: "I can see that you're unhappy, and you would like some parts of our relationship to improve. However, when you simply blame me for things, I feel really hurt and hopeless. I really care about you, and would love to talk about ways we could work together to make our relationship more of what we both want."

"[I]f someone refuses to respect a boundary you've set, it is perfectly acceptable for you to exit the conversation. This is how you back up your verbal requests with action and behavior," Thorn said.
Give feedback.
For instance, you're talking to your uncle over the phone. He continues to criticize you, even after you've directly and clearly said that it bothers you. You tell him that you need to go, and then hang up the phone.

You don't scream or slam the phone, Thorn said. You simply take an action (i.e., hanging up) that supports your boundary. (Again, this isn't about being harsh back.)

"We teach people how to treat us by how we act, what we say, and what we do or do not allow," Thorn said. As such, she suggested letting critical people know what is helpful.

For instance, let's say you open up to a friend about your struggles with parenting, Thorn said. Your friend starts pointing out the things you're doing wrong and sharing their advice. At this point, you let your friend know that this isn't what you're looking for. Instead, you'd appreciate them just listening to you.
Remember you're worthwhile.
In another example, your boss is being critical. According to Thorn, you say: "When you point out all the things I'm doing wrong, I feel devalued and confused. I want to do good work, and what would really help me be more effective is if you could also point out some of the things you think I'm doing well so that I can use those as a gauge for what exactly you're looking for."

Thorn reiterated that giving feedback isn't about blaming the person. Rather, it's about owning your emotion and being specific about what you want from the person, instead of criticism, she said.

Sometimes, it's hard not to internalize the harsh words someone says about us, and to berate ourselves even further. Thorn suggested reminding yourself that you're so much more than what one person says.
Take a break from the relationship.
Sure, maybe you can improve in some areas. All of us can. (This is simply learning and growing.) And either way you're worthwhile and worthy.

Thorn suggested this additional reminder: "I matter. I don't have to please everyone. It's OK that I'm uncomfortable; it means I'm in tune and receiving information about how I'm feeling."

If you've tried to set boundaries and communicate how you feel but the person still disrespects your limits, it might be time to take a break from the relationship, Thorn said.

Of course, this isn't so simple when the critical person is your boss. But, as she said, "It doesn't really matter who the other person is - being constantly criticized can turn into a form of emotional abuse, and it's not OK."

Dealing with critical people is uncomfortable and can trigger doubts about our own worth. Being assertive is a powerful strategy to practice with anyone in our lives. Just remember that you're a valuable person. Each of us has faults. Each of us has room to grow. That's the beauty of being human.

How to Deal with Critical People

Related Articles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Critical people make rude comments, judge our decisions, talk at length about what we're doing wrong or rarely have anything nice to say. One way to deal with them is to stop being with them altogether. But this isn't easy to do when the critical person is your boss, colleague, family member or your partner's father.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'Mam!' I would say to my mother, 'Can we just have a moment of quiet?'

It might last all of 2.3971 seconds.

'Mam, your tongue is hinged in the middle and flaps at both ends,' I would say. Perhaps it wasn't kind, but it sure was true!

It was as though my Aspie mother just couldn't hold her tongue. Whatever she thought, came shooting out her mouth. Thought and speech were Siamese twins. The chatter was constant. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week - but it felt like even more.

Even through the wall of her bedroom, I could hear her yackety-yacking in her sleep. Sometimes I'd crack the door open. She was narrating her dreams, with gestures, no less! When she woke, she'd be mystified that I knew exactly what her dreams had been about.

Welcome to the world of Aspergers. Dear people whose brains never shut off and tongues never stop flapping.

For a neurotypical, Aspie's incessant talking can be incredibly trying (at best) to bloody infuriating (at worst.) Luckily, Mam didn't require a rapt audience. She was perfectly happy to prattle away while I read a book or surfed the Internet, utterly ignoring her and her monologue.

While I'm a quiet neurotypical (NT) who thinks in the quietude of my own brain before speaking a complete thought, Aspies are completely the opposite. Their talking is how they think. Talking and thinking are synonymous, intertwined and choreographed in perfect time for them.

Telling them, as I tried on multiple occasions, 'Your brain is there for you to think inside. Think inside your brain. Not outside with your tongue!' is only met with a blank stare. That's not how they function. They couldn't if they tried.

They can't stop thinking, so they can't stop talking. It's as simple as that.

An Aspie who is consciously trying to hold their tongue, is like living with a benign, well-meaning volcano. Stressful for us and intolerable for them. They need to spew!

Because the constant talking or 'noise pollution' as I've privately labeled it in moments of exasperation is impossible for an Aspie to 'switch off', it is we neurotypicals who must take steps to protect ourselves. I thought seriously about investing in noise canceling headphones. My chief mistake was tolerating my mother's blathering to the point of fury.

Yes, I exploded in anger, which she found baffling, confusing and hurtful. She thought we were having a perfectly nice time together, blind to all the non-verbal cues I'd been shooting her way. Cues that a fellow NT would have found obvious and downright rude and insulting!

Like rolling my eyes. Sighing loudly. Reading a book. Turning my body away from her. Saying 'uh-huh' in the most bored, disinterested, disembodied tone possible. Putting on earphones. Even clapping my hands over my ears in blatant frustration. None of the messages got through to her.

'It's rude!' I lashed out, 'rude of you to talk constantly! Do you really think anyone wants to hear every single thought you have!? Is your ego that big!? I love you, but you are capable of shutting your mouth. I cannot close my ears. They don't come with flaps. You are abusing my auditory sense.'

She curled up in the fetal position and started to sob. Blind-sided (or so she thought having missed all the non-verbal cues I'd been shooting her way.) Shocked. Hurt. Confused. She seemed to think that having a relationship with her daughter meant sharing every thought that came into her head, aloud. She was hurt and baffled when I contradicted that notion.

Since that day, I regret getting so angry at her. Since then, I've come to a much better understanding of Aspergers and Aspies and how to handle their ceaseless conversation.

They cannot switch off their brains nor their tongues. There's no switch! It's as exhausting for them, as it us for us. Mam has tried to switch off, she tells me. She informs me that she could talk much more than she actually does. I find that hard to believe, but Aspies don't usually lie. It's antithetical to their nature.

It is I who have changed. It is I who must change to protect myself from the constant barrage of words. 'Words, words, words, I'm so sick of words' as Audrey Hepburn sang in My Fair Lady. It is I who must control the situation to avoid the anger that comes from being an Aspie's Private Ear, a receptacle for their constant yackety-yack-yack-yacking.

You must also protect yourself. To have a successful relationship with an Aspie is to take them in small doses, not huge gulps. Fits-and-starts, not constant contact.

In other words, put yourself in Time-Out. Give yourself permission to step away from the Aspie you love on a frequent, routine basis to avoid overwhelm.

You need quiet. They can't provide it.

Explain it to them, but don't expect them to understand. Your explanation is more in the manner of downloading a new computer program to their hard drive. A new behavioral pattern they must follow to get along in our society, dominated by neurotypicals, that they find baffling and confusing.

'I love you very much,' tell them, 'but I need silence to recharge my batteries.' Using technical, engineering analogies may help them understand, 'When I say I need a time-out, that means I'm going away from you for awhile. Don't follow me. Don't invade my privacy. When I feel rested, I'll return to be with you. It's nothing personal, but I need to take care of me.'

Design a sanctuary for yourself, where the dear Aspie cannot enter. It may be your bed. A quiet corner of the back garden. A gable in the attic. The breakfast nook. A refuge for much-needed solitude and blessed, blessed silence.

You'll emerge refreshed and your Aspie will be so glad you're back. And yes, the talking will commence again. But you won't want to rip your ears off and stuff them down their throat.

Aspies make wonderful, interesting, faithful and brilliant mothers, fathers, spouses, friends. Like the very finest things in life, Almas Beluga caviar or Alba white truffles, Aspies are best in small doses.

Aspies' Incessant Talk, Talk, Talking and How to Protect Yourself

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Aspies' Incessant Talk, Talk, Talking and How to Protect Yourself

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
'Mam!' I would say to my mother, 'Can we just have a moment of quiet?' It might last all of 2.3971 seconds. 'Mam, your tongue is hinged in the middle and flaps at both ends,' I would say. Perhaps it wasn't...

# data[].attributes.body
There aren't any studies cited to back these claims.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Is there a narcissistic MBTI personality type? That's a question recently posed by a friend of mine. Great question!

Plain observation can tell us that there are some MBTI types that can be more prone to being narcissistic-they typically see themselves as leaders. Who are the narcissists in your world? I'd love to get your comments. Tweet me or write on our Facebook page.

There's some narcissism in all of us. Narcissists come in many sizes and versions. Could there be a bit in you? See the table below. What's the likelihood that you could be a narcissist?

What's the difference between a narcissist and a person with a healthy self-concept and high confidence? In healthy personalities, confidence, motivation, and skill might help you win class president. With poise and charm you could become CEO of a large company.

A narcissist, on the other hand, grabs power in an organization, supported by a groveling group of underlings who feed his or her ego and do his or her will. People in the organization may profit from their leadership, but no one is safe from being used and kicked to the curb. When the narcissist deems the moment is right, they'll break the organization and sell the pieces-consequences be damned for all who helped them.

The narcissist rarely maintains long term relationships, because people don't serve their needs over time. They feed on people's praise, become enraged over criticism, never admit they're wrong or say they're sorry. They are experts on everything and if things go south they simply walk away.

Narcissistic leadership tends to show up in less than half of personality types-regularly in six. The other ten are unlikely have generate narcissistic leadership. Narcissism shows up in different ways, depending on the personality type-take a look and see if you agree with the way we believe it shows up in your type.

ISTJ (11.6% of population)

A narcissistic ISTJ positions himself/herself at the in the center of the organizational machinery-accounting, purchasing, HR. They make the rules and they enforce the rule. Senior managers love them-at least in the beginning. They bring order and predictability to an organization. Friends and admirers of a narcissistic ISTJ get their budget approved faster, and their permission to hire paperwork floats to the top of the pile. A really successful ISTJ narcissist can have a tight grip on the organization. Soon they control senior management and nothing moves without their approval.

ISFJ (13.8% of population)

A narcissistic ISFJ? Sounds like fantasy. ISFJ's are often found serving in hospitals, schools, religious communities, clients and organizations general. Yet the ISFJ, whose passion is to help, can be narcissistic as they draw around themselves an adulating group of admirers, followers, and people they help. They often find themselves as leaders of powerful institutions, and a few can be quite narcissistic.

INFJ (1.5% of population)

A narcissistic leader? Unlikely. Mystical, idealistic, visionary, this tiny, but powerful personality type rarely produces narcissists-but there are those within the type. There are the Mother Theresa's, Nelson Mandela, and other powerful mystics. But INFJ's can also produce cult leaders who use their power and vision to control admiring followers...and that might be what INFJ Narcissism looks like.

INTJ (2.1% of population)

Yes, intellect and narcissism can go together. This brainy, theoretical type is most often seen in the role of professor, lecturer, and inventor. They are often quite popular and have a gift for verbal expression and can explain the unexplainable. They can become narcissistic because of their general tendency to be both idealistic and cynical. They can become quite toxic when they become "justifiably narcissistic" when they feel they system is rigged and they draw a group around them to bring down the crooked system. They can become quite powerful narcissistic leaders.

ISTP (5.4% of population)

ISTP's are unlikely to be narcissistic leaders. ISTP's, mechanically inclined and loyal to their comrades, are very private people, quiet observers who can be quite charming and gregarious. They have little opportunity to exercise oversized egos.

ISFP (4.4% of population)

A quite unlikely narcissist. As an adventurer and someone who dances to his or her own drumbeat, An ISFP is extremely unlikely to be a narcissistic leader. They live through their experiences, which they may share with others, but are quite unlikely to be interested in bringing others together to fulfill their own needs.

INFP (5.4% of population)

INFP narcissist? Not likely. It is inconsistent with a live and let live point of view and way of operating. INFP personalities are surprising originals with great insights into people and a very personal vision of themselves. Although an INFP might demonstrate some narcissistic attributes, they are unlikely to be classic narcissists. INFP's exercise control in their dark side by going underground, rationing themselves and what they give to others.

ESFP (8.5% of population)

The ESFP could be the least likely to succeed at being a maniacal, narcissistic ego driven leader. Their problem? They're just too nice. They may not be moving the world, but they are making it more fun. Instead of participating in a hostile take-over, they're rather beginning the part.

INTP (3.3% of population)

INTP, narcissist? Probably not. INTP's almost invariably look at systems and organizations and deconstruct them with their very capable intellects. They keenly observe what doesn't work, what is contradictory. Their group approach often is, "Let's take this down to ground zero and build it again, this time right." It is unlikely the INTP would ever be the narcissistic type to lead a group to their narcissistic goals.

ESTP (4.3% of population)

An ESTP is quite improbable to become a narcissistic leader. The ESTP is often characterized as an adventurous, luxury loving James Bond type. More often, however, they are much more like their "type cousins," the ESTJ. They like to deploy in frameworks that are defined and where there are boundaries set. They are most unlikely to be an ego driven leader.

ENFP (8.1% of population)

ENFP's can be narcissists. ENFP's at their most effective, are the heart of organizational communication and strategy. They are loved and revered by a loyal following who are just waiting for their direction. ENFP's transmit love and appreciation to their loyal follows-and, most would agree, ENFP's love and appreciate themselves. Few ENFP's have any problem with low self-esteem. Those around them usually are eager to line up behind what they say. ENFP's have a gift for communicating change to those in the organization for whom change is unwelcome. ENFP's have the ability to sell change, both good and bad, because of the natural bond they form with people. They are often seen as the mouthpiece of management, which can be for good or not so good.

ENTP (3.2% of population)

ENTP's are fertile fields for narcissists. They have a large supply of technical and communications skills that enable them to hold sway over people. Because they lead with their iNtuition, they sense where people are and how to move them both in person and in social media. They can be thin skinned and very receptive to praise and adulation. They can be very successful in organizing resources and people for good or for ill.

ESTJ (8.7% of population)

ESTJ's are rarely narcissistic. They most often feel secure working with a context of organization, and are rarely the swash-buckling pirate, entrepreneurial types. They can be enablers and collaborators with narcissists and bask in their resources and praise.

ESFJ (12.3% of population)

ESFJ, narcissist? That's the closest thing possible to impossible. The ESFJ is a team coordinator, constantly caring for the team and its needs. They are fearlessly ethical, and anyone around them who is not totally honest could be in real trouble-whistles will blow! No narcissist here.

ENFJ (2.5% of population)

Rarely could the ENFJ be a narcissist leader, but when in those rare cases they are, watch out. ENFJ are articulate, skilled, and often charismatic facilitators who find consensus in opposing points of view. They can be great academics, non-profit, and religious leaders. In some few cases, ENFJ's can become narcissistic leaders, leading organizations with charm, but with little ability to collaborate with their colleagues, thin skinned, lacking empathy, and a future vision. The ENFJ has such natural buy-in from those around them, that often the organization is in trouble before anyone knows it.

ENTJ (1.8% of population)

Yes, ENTJ's can be narcissistic leaders, especially in difficult situations where they won against all odds-which frequently happens with ENTJs. They are often chosen as CEOs of organizations that are underperforming or in great danger. The ENTJ often believes that getting the right outcome is more important than following conventional protocols. ENTJs can cut corners and be quite manipulative when getting close to accomplishing a goal. They can be quite defensive when challenged and consider disagreement as disloyalty. The more power they control, the more dictatorial they can become and turn into a huge narcissistic leader.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Which MBTI Type is the Most Narcissistic?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is there a narcissistic MBTI personality type? That's a question recently posed by a friend of mine. Great question! Plain observation can tell us that there are some MBTI types that can be more prone to being narcissistic-they typically see themselves as leaders. Who are the narcissists in your world?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some heartfelt advice from writer Bill Bernat, who's been there

When I lived with severe depression and social anxiety, I found it extremely difficult to talk to strangers. Yet the one conversation that uplifted me more than any other occurred in the dining hall of the mental health wing of a mountain-town hospital. I met a woman who told me that a few days earlier, she'd driven her Jeep Wrangler to the edge of the Grand Canyon. She sat there, revving the engine and thinking about driving over.

She described what had been going on in her life in the days and months leading up, what her thoughts were at that exact moment, why she wanted to die, and why she didn't do it. We nodded and half-smiled, and then it was my turn to talk about my journey to our table in that fine dining establishment. I had taken too many sleeping pills. After the doctors treated me, they were like, "Hey, we'd love it if you would be our guest in the psych ward!"

That day, she and I talked shop. She allowed me to be deeply depressed and simultaneously have a genuine connection to another person. For the first time, I identified as someone living with depression and I felt, oddly, good about it - or rather, like I wasn't a bad person for having it.

Now, imagine one of the people at that table was a member of your family or a close friend who told you they were really depressed. Would you be comfortable talking to them?

Depression doesn't diminish a person's desire to connect with other people, just their ability.

The World Health Organization says that depression is the leading cause of ill health and disability worldwide, affecting more than 300 million people. In the United States, the National Institute of Mental Health reports 7 percent of Americans experience depression in a year. But while depression is super common, in my experience most folks don't want to talk to depressed people unless we pretend to be happy. So we learn to put on a cheerful façade for casual interactions, like buying a pumpkin spice latte. The average barista doesn't want to know that a customer is trapped in the infinite darkness of their soul.

Depression doesn't diminish a person's desire to connect with other people, just their ability. And despite what you might think, talking to friends and family living with depression can be easy and maybe fun. Not like Facebook-selfie-with-Lady-Gaga-at-an-underground-party fun - instead, I'm talking about the kind of fun where people enjoy each other's company effortlessly, no one feels awkward, and no one accuses the sad person of ruining the holidays.

There's a chasm that exists. On one side are people with depression, and on the other side is everyone else and they're asking, "Why you gotta be so depressed?"

I've noticed there's a chasm that exists. On the one side are those people living with depression, who may act in off-putting or confusing ways because they're fighting a war in their head that nobody else can see. On the other side is everyone else, and they're looking across the divide, shaking their heads, and asking, 'Why you gotta be so depressed?'

I began battling depression when I was eight, and decades later, to my surprise, I started winning that battle. I shifted from being miserable much of the time to enjoying life. Today I live pretty well with bipolar disorder, and I've overcome some other mental health conditions, like overeating, addiction and social anxiety. As someone who lives on both sides of this chasm, I want to offer you some guidance based on my experiences to help you build a bridge across. I've also talked to a lot of people who've lived with depression to refine these suggestions.

Please don't let our lack of bubbly happiness freak you out. Sadness doesn't need to be treated with the urgency of a shark attack.

Before I get to the dos, here are the don'ts - some things you might want to avoid when talking to someone who's depressed.

Don't say "Just get over it." That's a great idea - we love it - but there's just one problem: we already thought of that. The inability to "just get over it" is depression. Depression is an illness, so it's no different from telling someone with a broken ankle or cancer to "just get over it." Try not to fix us - your pressure to be "normal" can make us depressed people feel like we're disappointing you.

Don't insist that the things which make other people feel better will work for us. For example, you cannot cure clinical depression by eating ice cream, which is unfortunate because that would be living the dream.

Don't take it personally if we respond negatively to your advice. I have a friend who, about a year ago, messaged me saying he was feeling really isolated and depressed. I suggested some things for him to do, and he was like, "No, no, and no." I got mad, like, "How dare he not embrace my brilliant wisdom!" Then I remembered the times I've been depressed and how I thought I was doomed in all possible futures and everybody hated me. It didn't matter how many people told me otherwise; I didn't believe them. So I let my friend know I cared, and I didn't take his response personally.

Don't think that being sad and being OK are incompatible. Please don't let our lack of bubbly happiness freak you out. Sadness does not need to be treated with the urgency of a shark attack. Yes, we can be sad and OK at the exact same time. TV, movies, popular songs and even people tell us if we're not happy, there's something wrong. We're taught that sadness is unnatural, and we must resist it. In truth, it's natural and it's healthy to accept sadness and know it won't last forever.

Talk to a depressed person as if their life is just as valuable, intense and beautiful as yours.

And here are some dos.

Do talk to us in your natural voice. You don't need to put on a sad voice because we're depressed; do you sneeze when you're talking to somebody with a cold? It's not rude for you to be upbeat around us.

Do absolve yourself of responsibility for the depressed person. You might be afraid that if you talk to them, you're responsible for their well-being, that you need to "fix" them and solve their problems. You're not expected to be Dr. Phil - just be friendly, more like Ellen. You may worry that you won't know what to say, but words are not the most important thing - your presence is.

Do be clear about what you can and cannot do for us. I've told people, "Hey, call or text me anytime, but I might not be able to get back to you that same day." It's totally cool for you to make a narrow offer with really clear boundaries. Give us a sense of control by getting our consent about what you're planning to do. A while back when I was having a depressive episode, a friend reached out and said, "Hey, I want to check in with you. Can I call you every day? Or, maybe text you every day and call you later in the week? What works for you?" By asking for my permission, she earned my confidence and remains one of my best friends today.

Do interact with us about normal stuff or ask us for help. When people were worried about a friend of mine, they'd call him and ask if he wanted to go shopping or help them clean out their garage. This was a great way to reach out. They were engaging with him without calling attention to his depression. He knew they cared, but he didn't feel embarrassed or like a burden. (Yes, your depressed friends could be a good source of free labor!) Invite them to contribute to your life in some way, even if it's as small as asking you to go see a movie that you wanted to see in the theater.

This is, by no means, a definitive list. All of these suggestions are grounded in one guiding principle: speaking to someone like they belong and can contribute. That's what allowed the woman in the Jeep Wrangler to start me on my path to recovery without even trying: She spoke to me like I was OK and had something to offer exactly as I was at that moment. Talk to a depressed person as if their life is just as valuable, intense and beautiful as yours. If you focus on that, it might just be the most uplifting conversation of their life.
This piece was adapted from a talk given at TEDxSnoIsleLibraries2017.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How you can connect to friends who are depressed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When I lived with severe depression and social anxiety, I found it extremely difficult to talk to strangers. Yet the one conversation that uplifted me more than any other occurred in the dining hall of the mental health wing of a mountain-town hospital.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every year, a large majority of product launches fail. There's debate about exactly what percentage- some say it is 75%, others claim it's closer to 95%. Regardless of which number is right, there is no doubt that a lot of time and energy go into marketing products that will no longer exist in a year. Why is this? Some of the failure is likely attributable to the fact that many company leaders, including executives, have what's called marketing myopia-a nearsighted focus on selling products and services, rather than seeing the "big picture" of what consumers really want.

I talked with John Deighton, a professor at Harvard Business School and an authority on consumer behavior and marketing, to better understand this classic concept, its origins, and its relevance to organizations today.

Where did the concept originate?

The term was coined by the late Harvard Business School marketing professor, Theodore Levitt, in a 1960 article by the same name (republished in 2004). The "heart of the article," according to Deighton, is Levitt's argument that companies are too focused on producing goods or services and don't spend enough time understanding what customers want or need. Therefore, he "encouraged executives to switch from a production orientation to a consumer orientation." As Levitt used to tell his students, "People don't want a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole!"

"The genius of the original article is that it is so easy to be myopic when it comes to marketing," says Deighton. "Any marketer is obligated to be concerned with programs, tactics, campaigns, etc. Unfortunately, the clock never stops long enough to answer the question, 'Why are you doing what you are doing?' So it's far too easy to lose sight of the big picture." The other thing that made the article so significant at the time of its publication is that it reminded CEOs that marketing is part of their job: "[Levitt] tells the leader of the organization: you are in business because you have a customer. Therefore you have to think about marketing," Deighton explains.

What is marketing myopia?

The myopia that Levitt describes is a lack of insight into what a business is doing for its customers. Organizations invest so much time, energy, and money in what they currently do that they're often blind to the future. They get lulled into thinking they're in a "growth industry," which, according to Levitt, don't exist. Instead, there are really only companies continuously capitalizing on growth opportunities.

There are several examples in the article that illustrate the main concept, that your product is not your business. Perhaps the most famous is the railroad lines, which Levitt argues fell into steep decline because they thought they were in the train business rather than the transportation business. If those leaders had seen themselves as helping customers get from one place to another, they might've expanded the business into other forms of transportation like cars, trucks, or airplanes. Unfortunately, they let other companies seize those opportunities and steal away their passengers instead.

Luckily, there is a cure for marketing myopia. Levitt suggests that leaders ask themselves: What business are we really in? Deighton says that the best way for leaders to answer that question is by asking themselves another: What are we really doing for the customer? Successful companies focus on customer needs, not their own products and services, which can-and will-be replaced by competitive alternatives, either ones they make themselves or those produced by existing or potential competitors.

How relevant is it today?

Deighton says the idea of marketing myopia is "still very applicable" today, "in part because the original idea wasn't very prescriptive. Levitt didn't offer 'ten steps to eliminate marketing myopia'. Instead, he was all about provoking people to think differently." In fact, Deighton still uses the concept frequently when he introduces what marketing is to business school students.

And you don't have to look very far to see companies or industries that are suffering from this malady today. Deighton points to an example close to home for this writer: the publishing industry. He suggests that it's time for publishers to ask Levitt's central question: What business are we really in? "There seems to be a myopic attachment to the word 'publish' that is a production-oriented take on the industry. But what are customers really looking for?" They don't want newspapers or magazines, he says. "They want to be entertained, informed, stimulated, by people more interesting than their friends and acquaintances," he argues. "Only a production-oriented publisher would defend the form of delivery over the value of the experience it delivers."

There are, of course, contemporary companies that are taking Levitt's advice to heart. Deighton points to IBM Interactive Experience, IBM's consultancy that combines analytics, design, and technology (and brings in $2 billion in revenue) as an "attempt to think past what they produce and say, 'we're not in the business of information processing, we're delivering the communications that are valued by consumers.'"

How has marketing myopia evolved?

The concept has stayed in tact over the last 50-plus years. Deighton says that that is because the original article was like a "polemic, almost like a religion. And any attempts to augment, complicate, or interfere with the polemic don't work." The idea has become the foundation of modern marketing.

That's not to say it doesn't have its limits. In 2010, Craig Smith at INSEAD, Minette Drumwright at UT Austin, and Mary Gentile at Babson, published a paper called " The New Marketing Myopia." They posited that marketers have taken Levitt's advice to an extreme, creating a new kind of short sightedness, marked by a single-minded focus on the customer, a narrow definition of the customer, and a failure to address the multiple stakeholders who have arisen out of the "changed societal context of business". There is no doubt that Levitt believed the entire corporation must be viewed as a customer-creating and customer-satisfying organism, and Deighton admits that this is one of the potential pitfalls of Levitt's original idea: it "puts great trust in the consumer." In his original article, Levitt acknowledged how difficult it can be to listen to customers; he wrote: "Consumers are unpredictable, varied, fickle, stupid, shortsighted, stubborn, and generally bothersome." But Smith, Drumwright, and Gentile go even further, arguing that it's not just about listening to consumers but about hearing all of the stakeholders who contribute to your company's success, such as employees, suppliers, shareholders, competitors, media, and community members.

Deighton says that the concept of "industries" has also been challenged over the last decade or so. The industry a company is in today may not be the same one it's in next year: "In today's very fluid times, it's more accurate to say 'eco-system.' Disruptions are constantly challenging the stability of industries." Take programmatic ad buying. As Deighton explains. "People who apply technology to ad targeting don't necessarily think they are in a particular industry. They recognize that the product will change, the medium will change, everything on the production side is in play. The only constant is the consumer need they fill."

Marketing myopia remains an important reminder of the risks your company runs if you don't pay close attention to your consumers' needs. Levitt believed that executives couldn't predict the future-and shouldn't try. Instead, by concentrating on meeting customer needs rather than on selling products-by always keeping in mind the business that they're really in-companies could be better prepared for whatever the future would bring.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Flickr/Adán Sánchez de Pedro

It's normal to fight with your significant other, but narcissists can be incredibly cruel and threatening in heated situations.

This is because they cannot see you as somebody they love, and someone who has angered them at the same time.

Something traumatic could have happened in their early life, meaning they didn't develop "object constancy."

Narcissists cannot change, so the best thing to do is to leave and protect yourself.

We're all guilty of saying hurtful things in the heat of the moment. Every relationship has its ups and downs, usually resulting in arguments, but these don't necessarily mean you're going to break up.

When we quarrel with our loved ones, most of us have the ability not to do too much damage. This is because of something called object constancy. It basically means having the ability to still have a positive emotional bond with someone when you are also feeling angry, hurt, or disappointed with them. It also means being able to feel emotionally connected to that person when they are not physically around you.

To most of us, this is a given, and we can move past the little things. However, to those with narcissistic personality disorder, or people who are psychopathic or sociopathic with narcissistic traits, the negative feelings they have towards someone in the moment are all they can focus on.

If you date a narcissist, chances are they saw you as a worthy target, then they love bombed you into thinking they were your perfect match. They target strong, successful people to prey on partly because they like a challenge, and partly because it makes them look good. However, then they start breaking down your spirit with their abusive, gaslighting behaviour, then discard you suddenly and brutally.

People who have been in narcissistic, abusive relationships often describe their partner as having a "Jeckyll and Hyde" behaviour - one moment they are acting like everything is perfect and you are the love of their life, but something switches and a monster appears in front of you who is angry, cruel, and threatening.

According to Shannon Thomas, a therapist and author of the book "Healing from Hidden Abuse," abusive people can switch between Jeckyll and Hyde so easily because they never take any responsibility for their actions. This is also why they are able to move on so quickly from seemingly relationship-ending arguments, sometimes pretending that they didn't happen at all.

"It's that lack of empathy and that lack of attachment that they can just go from one place to the next," she told Business Insider. "If nothing ever sticks to them, if there's no actual remorse, and no guilt of any kind, then its always someone else's fault. I describe them like Teflon, the frying pan, nothing sticks to them, nothing ever really is their responsibility, it's always projected out."

The lack of object constancy in the narcissist's mind means they cannot cope with the idea that the person they are dating doesn't exactly fit into how their ideal mate should look, think, and behave. When they realise the person they are with is human, with faults and imperfections, that's it. They move on to their next mark, leaving the other person confused and heartbroken.

It's not known how someone becomes this way

A well-respected and cited American psychologist Margaret Mahler studied object constancy in infants. In her work she noted that once a child starts to crawl, it begins to understand that it is separate from its mother, and starts to develop a sense of self.

The first object children learn is their mother, and how all the different parts of her - her voice, arms, ability to feed - all belong to the same being. They also learn that when she leaves the room, she will come back again.

However, some children grow up with this part of their development being fragmented somehow. The reasons for this are not well understood in psychology yet, but both nature (genetics) and nurture (parenting) could play a role.

For example, Mahler wrote that if a child's caretaker is abusive, this can result in a defense mechanism in their psychology called "splitting," which could help explain why some people grow up with a lack of object constancy - and then become narcissists with the inability to have empathy for others.

In this situation, the child needs to feel cared for, even though their parent isn't supplying them with that, and so they repress the negative aspects of the "object," the mother, so they can hold onto the positive ones. In the child's mind, the idea of the mother is being preserved and destroyed at the same time.

According to psychiatrist Perry Branson in a blog post on Psychology Today, this can result in dissociation from the situation. This can happen in adulthood when the narcissist is under stress, such as being in an argument with their significant other. They dissociate from the positive feelings while they are experiencing negative ones and vice versa, seeing the other person as all good or all bad. It's similar to how a toddler has a temper tantrum.

Therapist Perpetua Neo told Business Insider that the behaviour of narcissists in abusive relationships is so insidious that the victims stop respecting themselves. Narcissists can never change, she said, and the best thing survivors can do is run far away from them as fast as they can.

"You want to make sure you reclaim your life in a different way. When you're with a narcissist, you stop doing things for yourself because they don't like you doing things for yourself," Neo said. "Be really clear in your head that this person is a narcissist and really nothing can be done about it. The only thing you can do about it is to take care of yourself."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Narcissists aren't capable of something called 'object constancy' - and it helps explain why they are so cruel to the people they date

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's normal to fight with your significant other, but narcissists can be incredibly cruel and threatening in heated situations. This is because they cannot see you as somebody they love, and someone who has angered them at the same time. Something traumatic could have happened in their early life, meaning they didn't develop "object constancy."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For better or for worse, people often possess "less than ideal" character qualities or behaviors that make working with or for them intensely challenging. We all have them: impatience, chronic tardiness, aloofness, poor listening skills, the list goes on.

A couple of years ago, I wrote an article entitled "Psychological Clientology: 5 Types of Clients to Avoid." Not only did the post end up getting syndicated by multiple outlets, but it also sparked many subsequent online conversations about how to deal with difficult personalities in the workplace, particularly clients or customers who are vital to the stability of your business.

One standout personality type, the narcissist, is particularly difficult because he or she often lacks the ability to see things any other way than their own, needs constant attention and admiration, and generally lacks empathy. And somehow, amidst all of it, they can make you feel like the biggest loser on the planet. It's much like dealing with the antics a spoiled child, which is confusing because you're looking at this person, this grown human being, thinking "This has to be a joke, right?"
Related: 5 Steps to Boost the Skills That Will Help You Better Connect With People
However, working with a narcissist can also be extremely rewarding and inspiring because of their nearly superhuman skills for getting things done -- when they want it and how they want it.

To gain insight into the best strategies for working with and for a narcissist, I tapped my dear friend Robert Weiss, the senior vice president for clinical development at Elements Behavioral Health, an accomplished author and world-renowned speaker on sex and intimacy in the digital age. Needless to say, he's seen thousands of narcissists.

According to Weiss, the most important thing to know about narcissists is that their behavior and world view is grounded in deep shame and enduring low self-esteem.

"No matter how successful these individuals become, they feel deep down inside themselves as if they are not good enough," Weiss says. "Every small human error -- even the little errors we all tend to make -- become reminders of their shortcomings."

While there are most certainly genetic aspects to personality development, these individuals have typically experienced profound childhood trauma. Typically their trauma experience has been layered, building up over time and creating their negative self-perception.

So how does one identify a narcissist, and what are some useful things to know about this particular personality type in terms of a working relationship?

The "key negative traits" of a narcissist in a work setting, according to Weiss:

They demonstrate a clear lack of empathy for how others feel or what they need.

They often have an overly excessive focus on getting others to consistently validate them (even small accomplishments).

They tend toward impulsivity and making decisions "from the hip."

They may rage, pout, gossip, devalue and otherwise act out when they don't get their way.

They are not great team players. They tend to get into power struggles and "I'm right, you're wrong" discussions. They need to be right.

They tend to see people as being either on their side or against them, with few gray areas.

They will use gossip, manipulation, charm and even seduction to get their way.

They will use other people and their thoughts and ideas to get ahead.

They are not (consciously) malicious, and they will feel ashamed (even self-hating) for their bad behavior when it's pointed out, but then they will turn around and do the same thing without a second thought.

They are often highly demanding of themselves and others, which can lead to them being perfectionists and controlling, holding unreasonable expectations for others and their performance.

They struggle with close relationships and lack trust.

They are easily frustrated (and can rage) if their projects, goals and needs aren't getting equal or more focus than the projects, goals and needs of others.

They have limited leadership skills due to their excessive self-focus.

"It is incumbent on those in a close relationship with a narcissist to be warm, genuine and empathetic," Weiss says, "and to be able to tolerate some of their pouting and anger -- knowing that any negative thing said to them will be amplified internally, often to an extreme degree. Similarly, every positive thing they hear will be seen as obviously deserved or not positive enough. Relationships need to feel consistent, real and non-shaming to the narcissistically wounded person."
Related: Dealing With Feelings: How to Be an Emotionally-Aware Leader
The narcissist does have a variety of positive attributes, which can make working alongside them inspiring and rewarding, assuming you are aware of how to handle the negative aspects:

They tend to speak out about a problem, whereas others will be more polite and say nothing.

They tend to be creative and passionate about any projects they take on as "theirs."

They tend to think and work outside the box, often offering unexpected new and fresh ideas and concepts.

Their perfectionism and control (when tempered) can produce profoundly positive results within their organizations.

Their need for attention and validation can shine on their workplace, bringing more attention and useful notice to an organization.

They can be great leaders, provided that they have people around them to provide the interpersonal functions they don't have (essentially, they need someone in power to contain and confront them, and they also need someone to provide a buffer between them and those who might react negatively to them).

They work extremely well on their own, tending to be highly self-motivated.

If they embrace an organization as their own, they will work tirelessly to help it succeed (as it has become a reflection of them).

They are often good at working with the media in PR, outreach, social media, etc.

Their charm, extroversion and seduction makes them great sales and marketing people.

They are great at creating superficial relationships (see sales/marketing above), though not so great at personal follow-through.

They can use their powerful persona to shape and mold a company or work environment.

Is it really possible to work with a narcissist?

"Working with narcissists can be very difficult, as their sense of self-worth is rooted in trauma and shame," Weiss says. "As such, they typically feel unsafe in any sort of emotionally connective relationship. They seek control and power because they think it will keep them safe from being 'exposed' as the unworthy frauds that they believe themselves to be."

Problems typically arise if and when those working with and around the narcissist are non-empathetic, critical, slow to praise and impatient with the narcissist's struggle to hold onto his/her self-esteem.

But Weiss is quick to point out: "Narcissistic people can be incredibly warm, bright, engaging, thoughtful (when they are thinking about doing that) and creative, and, as such, they may offer a great deal to any work or personal situation."

While at face value the narcissist may seem like an impossible colleague, customer or manager, a little understanding about this particular personality type will likely go a long way in a work setting. After all, no one is perfect, and we could all benefit from applying more empathy, compassion and listening skills to those with whom we spend a great majority of our time.
Related: 3 Personality Types That Can Harm Your Business

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For better or for worse, people often possess "less than ideal" character qualities or behaviors that make working with or for them intensely challenging. We all have them: impatience, chronic tardiness, aloofness, poor listening skills, the list goes on. A couple of years ago, I wrote an article entitled "Psychological Clientology: 5 Types of Clients to Avoid."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Excessive alcohol use can lead to increased risk of health problems such as injuries, violence, liver diseases, and cancer.The CDC Alcohol Program works to strengthen the scientific foundation for preventing excessive alcohol use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During the past few decades, many industrial companies have attempted to achieve manufacturing excellence. They have had at their disposal any number of methodologies and theories, quality initiatives, and cost-reducing concepts. But few companies have made much headway. Manufacturing strategies - decisions related to siting, designing, and running factories - are often the same as they were 10 or 20 years ago. Plants often look and feel as they did then. Programs intended to improve performance, such as "total quality management," "lean production," and "Six Sigma," seem to ebb away, without producing the desired results. Sometimes it seems as though the harder manufacturers try to improve, the worse they perform.

Consider, for example, the bad news from the Middle East that hit Household GmbH, a Europe-based consumer goods manufacturer, in 2003. (The company name is changed, but the details are accurate.) Household's market share in hygiene products, one of its flagship divisions, had recently tumbled in such cities as Cairo and Abu Dhabi. When Household's regional managers investigated, they discovered that a private-label producer based in Egypt had begun to aggressively undercut the shelf price of Household's products.

At first glance, it seemed as if Household could easily win a price war with any local private label. After all, Household's Middle Eastern manufacturing sites were running at higher capacity than the competition's sites, with advanced proprietary technology and a highly productive, well-trained staff. But the private-label manufacturer refused to go away, and its prices remained low while its market share kept rising.

Household's managers had assumed that their competitor was selling under cost. But gradually it became clear that, despite Household's scale and technological edge, the competitor spent less to make most hygiene products, without any sacrifice in quality - at least as perceived by customers. In short, Household's ostensible manufacturing advantage - its distinctive technology - had become its biggest disadvantage. To make matters worse, Household had nearly completed a new factory in Ukraine, which had been intended, in part, to add capacity to serve the Mideast, but which now would simply add to Household's manufacturing costs.

There are many such stories in manufacturing today. Executives do all the right things to improve operations, but somehow get outperformed on cost, quality, or delivery. They may turn to benchmarking exercises, but those are rarely meaningful. Low-cost competitors appear with prices that can't be completely explained by lower wages. Rising warranty costs or dramatic product recall levels indicate the ongoing erosion of quality.

As a last resort, companies outsource production, and thus erode their own company's competence in it. Gradually, manufacturing is treated more and more as an outcast, and plant communities become disenfranchised.

We call this condition "manufacturing myopia." It is akin to the "marketing myopia" that Harvard Business School lecturer Theodore Levitt identified in the 1960s. Professor Levitt argued that companies made themselves vulnerable when they defined their brands too narrowly. Railroads are not in the passenger-train business, he argued; they're in transportation. Every business should define itself through the interests of its market, not its own production priorities.

Today, myopia is even more prevalent and dangerous in manufacturing than it was in marketing four decades ago. Like marketing myopia, manufacturing myopia is caused by isolation; it is the inevitable outcome of keeping manufacturing strategies contained to the functional or even plant level, with little or no connection to enterprise-wide strategies. As the factories and supply chain oversight functions are cut off from the rest of the executive decision makers, the manufacturing focus grows narrower, and overall competence can atrophy. This compels companies to cut costs even more blindly and irresponsibly, often by setting company-wide targets determined by financial fiat rather than by competitive or customer insights. (See Exhibit 1.)

Building Awareness
Surprisingly few major multinational or large-scale manufacturing companies have been able to break free of this trap. Household GmbH was one of them. The Middle East episode prodded its senior executives into a multiyear, systematic endeavor to rethink the company's operations and to glean and use better information about its manufacturing costs. Today, rather than a few state-of-the-art plants, Household operates a variety of plants that are designed for flexibility and can be moved or revamped as customer needs and the competitive climate change.

The cure for manufacturing myopia is 20/20 vision - that is, the cultivation of awareness about manufacturing costs and means. Companies can sharpen their own ability, as Household did, to see their operations more clearly and redesign them more flexibly. For companies that achieve this kind of manufacturing prowess, the manufacturing function is no longer seen primarily as a cost center, ripe for cutbacks or outsourcing. Instead, the ability to produce higher-quality goods at lower prices in a more flexible manner is a key component of their long-term competitive strategy and a central, dependable part of their identity.

This involves two major commitments: first, dedication of resources to building awareness. Leaders can peel back the layers of their own manufacturing operations and those of their competitors so that processes, advantages, and disadvantages can be viewed more clearly. This means becoming more aware of a company's unique technological capabilities, the unfulfilled potentials of each plant (for reaching the appropriate markets), and the specific drivers responsible for their costs. Many manufacturers look at cost data primarily as justification and leverage for continually trimming expenses, rather than as a source of insights about scale, capital spending, labor deployment, technology, logistics, and supply chain efficiency - all critical factors in measuring how well a company's manufacturing processes stack up against the competition. Toyota's much-admired manufacturing competence stems, in large part, from the company's insistence on building fine-grained awareness of every facet of production, at all levels of the company.

The second commitment is patience, demonstrated by investing the time and resources to address manufacturing productivity as a long-term, organization-wide strategic imperative and not as an isolated operational or functional issue. Plant managers are often expected to show the same fast pace of change as marketing, finance, and procurement, where six- to 18-month transformations are feasible. But those metrics don't apply to manufacturing efforts, where improving results requires a very different set of time frames. A new manufacturing program frequently involves motivating, as well as hiring or moving, thousands of employees; new construction; new technology deployment; and perhaps the closing of a plant or two, which takes years rather than months. That time is well invested if it is used to develop an effective, flexible manufacturing capability, unique to the business and its customers, as a platform for more rapid change once it is established.

How does one go about building this kind of awareness? At most companies, there are four dimensions of manufacturing in which highly visible data and analysis, projected farther into the future, can yield both short-term gains and long-term advantage: technological distinctiveness, network sophistication, in-plant transformation, and labor modernization.

Technological Distinctiveness
One of the first places to eliminate myopia is in the design, engineering, or purchasing of manufacturing technology. (We call this the "inherent" dimension of manufacturing, because it involves the physical nature of the products and the processes that create them.) There is a staggering level of underinvestment in business process innovation as compared with product innovation. In 2004, according to Booz Allen Hamilton analysis, only 10.2 percent of the R&D budgets at the top 500 industrial companies was set aside for process innovation, down from 15 percent in 1980. Because they've neglected this essential activity, manufacturers tend to rely on machine builders and other vendors to fill in the gap. In most cases, this is counterproductive. Equipment manufacturers do not generally have a strong track record for innovation, particularly for the kinds of creative and customized solutions that would enable individual companies to overcome their manufacturing shortcomings. And even when equipment providers are innovators, their technology is unlikely to give manufacturers a competitive edge, because it generally can be freely purchased by any of their rivals.

Moreover, in many organizations, there is little patience for process innovation, which in manufacturing is by its very nature a long-term event. After the production technology is replaced, it could take two to three years before the capital investment bears fruit in the semiconductor sector, five years in major manufacturing, and as much as 20 years in process industries, such as petrochemicals and electricity production. Additionally, to improve processes, companies have to train entire plant communities in dozens of different tools and techniques and completely different ways of working. All of that consumes time and resources.

Some extremely successful manufacturers, such as packaging giant Tetra Pak, Procter & Gamble, and Toyota, have bucked the trend and used in-house machine development and internal process innovation to protect their competitive advantages. P&G has long been a pioneer of novel factory floor environments; for example, letting shop floor employees not just lay out the flow of machinery but design the machines themselves. This approach began at P&G in the early 1960s and has developed in scope, efficiency, and sophistication ever since. In one celebrated example at a P&G plant in Lima, Ohio, a team of shop floor "technicians," as hourly workers were called, designed a machine for placing detergent bottles into position on the assembly line - a mechanical feat that P&G's professional engineers had said was impossible. The team commissioned a machine-tool supplier to produce the device, and put it successfully into operation.

But for every P&G, there are dozens of companies faced with an equivalent to Household's dilemma in the Middle East: Their state-of-the-art factories, more capable than those of competitors on a worldwide basis, are not flexible enough to respond to local conditions.

Sometimes, a promising process innovation effort is disbanded because top management changes or because the sponsoring executives lose interest, even though they have known all along about the nature of the investment they've been making. As a result, outmoded technological principles may endure for 30 or 40 years while the company cycles through a series of half-realized quality-improvement or plant-restructuring initiatives. Other times, process innovation is consigned to the plant level only. When approached in this way, companies become little more than multiple small organizations with no scale, unable to harness process technology as a competitive advantage.

Myopia also afflicts efforts to modify existing manufacturing processes. For example, there has been a lot of excitement in the last 15 years about design for manufacturing (DFM), an approach by which companies engineer products not just for their intrinsic qualities but also for how efficiently they can be manufactured. But despite the allure of DFM, the relationship between engineering and manufacturing groups at most companies is chilly or nonexistent. The shop floor community is often excluded from direct communication about the manufacturability of products with the engineering/design function. Even if the two groups are allowed to communicate, manufacturing companies may not have the budget to cover the engineers' internal rates and therefore may lose contact.

Network Sophistication
Most companies organize their production and supply operations on a project-by-project basis. As market
conditions change, they move plants from Detroit to Mexico, and a few years later they shift subassembly to Asia. They do not envision their manufacturing system for what it must be: A global, flexible supply chain network that can be reconfigured anywhere in the world as market conditions change. (We think of this dimension as "structural," because it involves such infrastructure-oriented features as the location and size of plants and the supply chain flow among them.)

Companies that realize this and design their plants accordingly gain a tremendous time advantage. It can take two years to close down a factory - and that's typically after several years of wavering over the decision to shutter it in the first place. It is far better to design the configuration of individual plants so that it is easy to enlarge, shrink, or reconfigure them based on the business landscape. Then fewer factories ever have to be abandoned and the manufacturing network needn't be completely overhauled. There's also an expense advantage as the one-time cost penalty of moving plants from one place to another is reduced.

This approach, known as flexible footprints, is practiced with great success by a few dozen large organizations. Among them: the U.S. Army, which constantly and proactively reassigns military bases to fresh uses. In an extremely novel implementation, a European manufacturer of specialized air conditioning supplies built its factories on large freighter ships that can be moved from port to port as the seasonal marketplace changes. The company chooses not to broadcast this manufacturing innovation publicly, perceiving it as a competitive advantage. A Qatari company, Cement International, has recently begun similar operations, putting a cement factory on board a ship that docks in ports around the Persian Gulf, wherever building materials are needed.

Unfortunately, we observe that there is little cooperation among companies within a supply chain to jointly optimize plant networks, another potentially lucrative example of flexible footprints. In the outdoor equipment industry and in basic chemicals, some companies have shared parts of their production capacity, sometimes spinning off manufacturing. But capacity pooling is a rarity outside those two industries.

In-Plant Transformation
It is now more than 30 years since the notion of manufacturing excellence - variously attributed to the Toyota production system, socio-technical systems, quality management, lean manufacturing, and high-performance systems - became widely known in Europe and the United States. By now, practically every manufacturing manager can tell you about pokeyoke, kanban, or self-steering teams. But plants that have successfully implemented the manufacturing practices that produce efficient and optimal operations are few and far between. And most of these are greenfield sites: previously undeveloped locations where elite processes could be designed into the factory from the beginning. The competitive advantage of process optimization remains high, in part, because of the woefully poor record of the manufacturing industry in general.

We think of in-plant transformation as "systemic," because it takes place when people see the processes on the shop floor as interrelated parts of a whole system. Why has this kind of in-plant transformation lagged so badly, even though its successes are so visible? Manufacturing myopia is the primary reason. Typically, process improvement is seen by company executives as a "go ahead, just do it" manufacturing issue managed solely by the plants.

This isolation contributes to the lack of patience among decision makers, who feel pressured to show results before the systemic change is ready. By contrast, a well-designed manufacturing change initiative is deliberately set up like a developmental path, with a menu of results expected in the short term, medium term, and long term. Some systemic drivers can have an effect on costs almost instantly (e.g., changing maintenance contractor purchasing procedures); some take a bit longer (e.g., installing "pull" systems, in which the production line sets its own pace, to replace the top-down controls of a manufacturing resource planning approach). Even in full-scale manufacturing transformation initiatives, it should not take more than two years for the first visible effects to appear. The leaders of many manufacturing projects stop paying attention after that. But in a well-designed initiative, those first results become a base for continuous improvement.

In a so-called brownfield site (an established factory with a long-standing work force), one may often find high fixed costs or blatant overstaffing. Installing "intelligent tools," "lean solutions," or "high-performance systems" will not solve these problems. If there are already more workers than work to do, improving production speed or throughput will not lead to higher levels of productivity, in part because overcapacity breeds "process creep," in which workers and managers merely overlay the new work rules and practices on top of their old routines. Despite knowing this, all too often, manufacturers myopically push a "lean" program through plants that are overstaffed and have a high share of non-value-added work. We call this the fat ballerina syndrome: Only slimmed-down organizations stand a chance of performing smart moves.

Companies also are often greedy or formulaic when it comes to assigning improvement objectives to plants. It's not atypical for a factory manager to be told to save 10 percent of fixed costs, while improving output and quality by 20 percent. Often a basic analysis will reveal that enhancing a plant's productivity dwarfs the value of firing a group of maintenance technicians and engineers, and more importantly that increasing productivity and cutting personnel are not mutually compatible objectives. For one thing, plant communities often resist cooperating with management to alter their work methods and increase output while their colleagues are being let go.

Labor Modernization
Let's face it: In most plants, industrial relations and treatment of the work force are reminiscent of the 19th century. This statistic illustrates the point: From 1999 to 2004, there were more strikes in most Western European countries than occurred between 1950 and 1975. In one German aerospace plant, where three generations have worked on the shop floor, absenteeism and illness rates have risen a steady 3 percent per generation. Overall, Western companies made few strides in aligning factory workers more closely to the companies that employ them. Only 20 percent of production workers in Western Europe and the U.S. receive compensation linked to performance, and more than 75 percent work under a compensation system that is so rigid it unintentionally drives people to take overtime.

We use the term realized because the modernization of a labor force takes place only in the real-world dimension of the community around each manufacturing location. The principles of effective work force management are universal: The improvement of labor practices and customization of human resource policies are essential to developing creative, innovative, and motivated employees. But the most appropriate methods for accomplishing those things are decidedly local. Labor issues vary significantly from one place to another. Work forces in different locales have their own particular cultures, holidays, workdays, family structures, community resources, demographics, education levels, and assumptions about the type of work they will do. Productivity can also deviate dramatically among regions.

Over the years, effective manufacturers have experimented with a wide variety of means for engaging shop floor employees. Some companies establish worker-focused principles. At one Dutch chemical company, the budget line for work space and plant maintenance and modernization was sacrosanct and could not be cut. This was important because workers perceived the company as a reliable protector of their safety. A cosmetics manufacturer demonstrated the same kind of commitment by installing an on-site health spa, free to employees. We have seen plants in which windows and skylights are carefully placed to make the most of natural light, the architecture fits local styles, and social spaces reflect the way employees naturally interact.

These types of factories, which fit their social and physical environment so well, are usually owned by companies that realize the value of an inspired work force to the finished product. Such companies often make concerted efforts to link employees with more in-depth knowledge of the company and the product. Danone, Procter & Gamble, Harley-Davidson, and Mercedes-Benz are all known for plant communities that take part in word-of-mouth and face-to-face sales campaigns and provide testimonials for marketing and public relations programs. Mercedes, for example, encourages customer-to-factory interaction by suggesting that car buyers pick up their new vehicles at, say, the Sindelfingen plant, where they can talk to plant workers about quality and other issues pertaining to the making of their automobiles. Very successful companies create products that command an emotional premium, and they make certain that their manufacturing employees are among the first to emotionally promote them. Ultimately, how can your product be loved by your customers if thousands of your own employees who make the product don't love producing it?

In a brownfield site, labor modernization often represents a daunting challenge. Managers may believe that they can employ greenfield policies (those applicable to a new factory) in a brownfield plant, but this assumption is flawed. The brownfield work force is generally older; they may have already lived through shutdowns, layoffs, and closures. Moreover, unions don't usually forget the bitter relations they had with the prior plant management and are less willing to forge alliances with the new factory team. In some locations, sophisticated lean production concepts, implemented in a one-size-fits-all pattern, have been viewed by the cynical, dispirited work force as micromanagement and paternalism.

For a brownfield renewal to succeed, the surrounding community has to be fundamentally remotivated and more closely tied to the enterprise through new compensation systems and governance roles. The German agricultural equipment maker Claas demonstrated the value that can be unlocked if the right formula is found. In the midst of substantial growth and as part of a constant drive to improve flexibility, Claas spun off a large part of the factory through a management buyout and made the newly independent plant a primary supplier. The newly formed business unit was able to secure quality standards and to better balance its capacity, signing up additional customers besides Claas. Meanwhile, employee motivation improved in the factory as managers used the space they had reclaimed to fundamentally reengineer activities, aiming at a one-piece-flow philosophy. The plant's positive development defied the long slump in commodity machining and metalworking factories in the region.

Manifesto for Manufacturers
A company seeking to overcome its manufacturing myopia may find the task daunting at first, but easier over time. The goal is not to "fix" manufacturing, but to build the capacity for long-term and medium-term manufacturing management among engineers, suppliers, and staff (including unionized staff), and to redesign the technology to take advantage of these capabilities and augment them.

There are no universal rules for doing this because each manufacturer has a unique combination of in-house capabilities, labor histories, supply chain relationships, market demands, and technological innovations. A holistic manufacturing strategy emerges only from an analysis that assesses the critical operational data buried in the four dimensions of manufacturing design: inherent, structural, systemic, and realized. (See Exhibit 2.)

Consider the recent case of a European auto manufacturer. The company was desperate for a way to cut costs per car, which had risen to almost 30 percent above those of its nearest competitor. The carmaker's initial inclination was to close plants and implement flexible manufacturing lines that could produce multiple models in remaining factories. Pressure from unhappy unions convinced the company to think twice about this plan.

Analysis of the automaker's cost drivers found that the gains from minimizing inherent costs (by increasing plant flexibility) and structural-level costs (by eliminating plants) would do little to close the gap between its manufacturing costs and those of its closest competitor. In fact, the only way that the company could catch up to its rival was by systemic improvements (adopting lean processes), a category that accounted for 65 percent of the cost gap. The automaker would never have learned this had it relied only on traditional analyses and not exposed the interconnections among all of the critical components of its manufacturing operations. To address its shortcomings, the company appointed experienced managers from outside the region to critical posts in its European plants, retooled its production system, and began to implement those lean manufacturing processes.

By separating manufacturing operations into their four dimensions and exploring the way they are interrelated, management can accurately measure manufacturing costs and perfect "what if?"-style decision making. This is not possible with a conventional cost accounting approach. Even the most advanced cost accounting systems are usually designed for only two tasks: calculating product costs to provide marketing with a basis for pricing, and tracking actual and forecasted results in individual cost centers.

In addition, accountants at most companies do not have the experience in operations to spell out the financial consequences of manufacturing decisions. For example, they cannot estimate the overall cost position of a plant that would result if more automated equipment were installed, specific processes were farmed out to a low-cost nation, the demand for a product doubled, the number of SKUs were reduced, or the competition opened two new plants in Eastern Europe using the latest manufacturing technology.

Even in the best of circumstances, it is tricky to distinguish the effects of individual manufacturing drivers. For instance, how much advantage does a competitor gain from operating continuous instead of batch processes, and how does that balance out the disadvantage it has maintaining smaller plants with greater indirect and overhead requirements? Manufacturing, finance, and research and development executives can't answer such questions in isolation from one another; they need regular opportunities to think and strategize together.

Companies that are willing to invest in a long-term change cycle discover that the learning curve in manufacturing is nonlinear. Even though the investment may be steady, measurable improvement is typically slow at first and accelerates over time. It may take five years to cross the initial threshold of a new production system, but after that first experience, the capacity for changing technology grows rapidly - in part because the technologies themselves become more flexible, and in part because employees develop the skills and knowledge to deploy new production machines more efficiently.

Cadbury Trebor Bassett, the candy and chocolate manufacturer based in Birmingham, England, grasped this particularly well. When the company installed a new production system, it assumed it would take up to five years for the plant to reach maturity. Cadbury measured this evolution by how well employees responded to the new system. As the plant matured and its capabilities grew, productivity was expected to increase. Management assumed that either head count would decrease or production quality would increase during the first five years, depending on the level of sales and scope of the plant's market. Indeed, as employees became more familiar with the processes, the cost of production dropped and quality stayed high.

This type of approach represents an alternative to the prevailing despondent mood at many manufacturing companies. Indeed, perhaps the most tragic result of manufacturing myopia, for many companies, is the lost opportunity for manufacturing leadership. Computer technology, materials science, and energy innovation have progressed dramatically over the past 20 years. There are many futuristic manufacturing options available. They include "instant" and "inkjet" manufacturing, where computer-based molding machines turn out individually customized plastic components with the speed of mass fabrication; biomimicry, in which industrial processes reproduce the cell-by-cell process by which, for example, a seashell is formed; and environmentally friendly fermentation-based fabrication methods that eschew toxic chemicals and reuse waste more effectively. In many industries, there exists great unfulfilled potential for moving beyond commoditization by rethinking manufacturing prowess as part of the company's identity. Few companies today are trying to realize that potential; there are few 21st-century equivalents to the original Ford Motor Company, with its breakthroughs in assembly-line manufacturing, or even to the 1990s-era Intel. We believe that manufacturing myopia helps explain why.

Over the past 20 years, manufacturing managers have learned that even the most effective supply chain management will not lead to results unless these capabilities are implemented - not just within the function, but at the level of the executive suite. In a confrontational competitive environment, the choice is engaging in manufacturing competence as the core of your corporate identity - or continuing to pay the price of myopia.

How did manufacturing myopia become so prevalent? There are several roots. Probably most pernicious was the separation of manufacturing, marketing, and finance in corporate structures that date back to the mid-20th century. "Turf wars" often unconsciously reinforce those divisions,
particularly when the stakes are high.

Here's one typical story we recently encountered in a consumer products company: The vice president of manufacturing stated at a meeting that his factories could deliver at lower costs, "but only if R&D can come up with a better factory blueprint and reduce the number of product parts." Also, he said, it would help if sales provided reliable forecasts "and didn't ask us for last-minute changes for important clients." And finance would be less of a hindrance if the CFO would finally approve funding for new machines to simplify operational bottlenecks. The company's vice president of sales responded that manufacturing needed to eliminate its oversized work force and sharply curtail labor costs by shifting more of the production to low-cost countries. Only then could his team sell significantly more.

The vice president of R&D expressed the opinion that manufacturing still had not managed to sufficiently operate the existing production technology. "We're simply not up to world-class standards," he said.

Later, the CEO said privately that he was fed up with all these points of view. None of them had much to do with the problem as he saw it: an unsustainable status quo of rising fixed costs and a widening gap between projected and actual profits.

Manufacturing companies are usually not set up with the kinds of incentives and decision rights that would encourage executives to review plant operations with a full understanding of the company's competitive cost drivers. Consequently, a narrow, self-interested view of plant performance tends to prevail, even when everyone involved has the best interests of the whole company at heart.

Business education reinforces the division. Students interested in manufacturing are tracked into a "ghetto" in many business schools; they don't share many classes or associate much with their counterparts in finance and strategy. Nor do they expect to cross over to other positions when they enter the working world. "Once a plant manager, always a plant manager," people say. Manufacturing functions consequently suffer in the "war for talent"; they recruit from a smaller pool. The result is often an unnecessary tension between manufacturing and finance; manufacturing executives may have far more contact with, and feel more loyalty to, employees than shareholders. And finance executives may not appreciate the strategic importance of manufacturing talent, particularly on the shop floor.

This tendency was exacerbated during the service boom of the 1990s, when it became fashionable to assert that mere manufacturing was not strategically important. Some companies followed cost-cutting strategies that downplayed the importance of their long-standing manufacturing knowledge, and then found themselves needing to rebuild it. This was one of the key components of the decline of the American manufacturer Sunbeam. After being acquired by Allegheny International in the early 1980s, the company's manufacturing division was "starved of capital to update its factories and refresh its product line," as management writer John Byrne put it. This ultimately led the shareholders to appoint cost- cutting turnaround artist Al Dunlap as CEO in 1996; manufacturing capacity suffered even more erosion during Mr. Dunlap's time as CEO. In his book Chainsaw: The Notorious Career of Al Dunlap in the Era of Profit-at-Any-Price (HarperBusiness, 1999), Mr. Byrne describes how Sunbeam shut down a high-quality, efficient hair-clipper plant in McMinnville, Tenn., and moved production to a chaotic, money-losing, poorly managed new facility near Mexico City.

To counterbalance all these trends, some companies now make deliberate efforts to integrate manufacturing with the rest of the enterprise. Toyota sends manufacturing employees and managers on sales calls - to areas including those where their products have low penetration. ASML, a Dutch company that is a leading producer of lithography and semiconductor manufacturing equipment, went from a 10 percent to a 70 percent market share in its product categories, in part by bridging this gap. ASML's head of manufacturing started as an accountant, then led a finance function, and only then moved into production. This perspective recently helped the company reduce lead times and generally improve the integration of manufacturing with other functions.
-K.G., C.W., P.V.H.

Reprint No. 06105

Author Profiles:

Kaj Grichnik ( Conrad Winkler ( Peter von Hochberg ( von_hochberg_peter@bah.com) is a vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton based in Düsseldorf. He has extensive experience in consulting with clients on manufacturing and lean production, focusing on automotive OEMs and suppliers, and industrial goods manufacturers.
winkler_conrad@bah.com) is a vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton based in Chicago. He advises companies across industries on supply chain management improvement and manufacturing strategies, with a focus on the automotive and aerospace sectors. grichnik_kaj@bah.com) is a principal of Booz Allen Hamilton based in Munich. As a leader of research and practice in manufacturing, he has visited more than 350 plants in the past 10 years. He focuses on the pharmaceuticals, food, aerospace, and automotive industries. Also contributing to this article were John Potter, a Booz Allen Hamilton vice president based in London, and Georgina Grenon, a Booz Allen senior associate based in Paris.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Kaj Grichnik, Conrad Winkler, and Peter von Hochberg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During the past few decades, many industrial companies have attempted to achieve manufacturing excellence. They have had at their disposal any number of methodologies and theories, quality initiatives, and cost-reducing concepts. But few companies have made much headway. Manufacturing strategies - decisions related to siting, designing, and running factories - are often the same as they were 10 or 20 years ago.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Okay... I want to write a quick little post here to point out something that is becoming increasingly obvious to me. I've talked quite a bit over the past year about the ongoing feature team/component team debate. We talk about how agile teams are supposed to deliver an end-to-end cross-functional slice of the application architecture. When applications get big, I've talked about how sometimes we have to organize around large scale system components or services. So here is the deal... I think that in practice... most people actually get this. It seems that the more I talk to people doing agile in large organizations... the component team model might be THE primary organizational model in the enterprise.

Great right... no debate? Well... actually no. The problem is in the language we are using. If we are only building component features... software that is theoretically 'valuable' to the business... we are not building software that is sellable in and of itself. It is only the integration of multiple services or components that our external customers really care about. To some degree we are deluding ourselves about what we are really creating for the business. We get better at building our feature subset... our component features... but as an enterprise we are not getting any better at getting value out of the overall system. We are not getting better at delivering the end-to-end apps that our customers care about.

I think that to some degree we are guilty of a sort of institutional myopia. Because we can't control anything outside of our team... because we don't own, or have influence over, the PMO... over management... over the architecture group... over the integrated feature set... we control what we can control... we pretend the rest doesn't exist. We focus on our team. We desperately want to be good at what we do and we want to deliver value. We want to do valuable work. So what do we do? We change the rules. We redefine value and call it a backlog item. We redefine our customer and call him a product owner. We say that we are delivering working software that our 'customer' wants... but at the end of the day... we are just delivering a piece of the overall puzzle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Okay... I want to write a quick little post here to point out something that is becoming increasingly obvious to me. I've talked quite a bit over the past year about the ongoing feature team/component team debate. We talk about how agile teams are supposed to deliver an end-to-end cross-functional slice of the application architecture.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cross-functional teams can be very effective, particularly when formed to tackle a specific challenge or to capitalize on an opportunity. The question is, what's the best way to set one up and to organize it in a way that will insure the best chance of success?

In my experience, it's usually best if team members are chosen by a team leader appointed by management. Giving the leader the authority to choose the team will heighten his or her sense of accountability for getting the task done. But the leader should be cautioned to make sure the team has the diversity of members it needs. The following demonstrates why.

A newspaper competing with others in a large metropolitan area had a survey done to evaluate its entertainment section. A team was formed to respond to the findings. The team included representatives from editorial, production, and distribution. No one from advertising sales was asked to participate.

The team decided to integrate national entertainment news with local arts events, plays and concerts. What looked to be a lively and dynamic new section was created. But after a few months the newspaper's management told the team to reconvene.

The problem? Low advertising support.

This time, the team pulled in a representative from ad sales. Prospective advertisers for the section were surveyed and the problem became clear. The new section used a tabloid format, which takes full newspaper pages and turns on their sides, then folds them to make a dimensionally smaller section than the rest of the paper. Since there was more than one newspaper serving the area, this required advertisers to design ads specifically to fit this section, or to re-scale existing ads that had been created to run on full-size newspaper pages. Many advertisers did not want to go to this trouble and expense.

The section's design was changed to a full-size format and immediately it began attracting more advertising space. If the team had included a representative from advertising sales in the first place, it might have avoided unnecessary rework and loss of revenue during the quarter the new section ran as a tabloid.

This underscores the value of diversity in cross-functional teams, and not just to do with race, gender, age or sexual orientation. When it comes to finding innovative solutions, diversity of thought is as important as other differences. One way to ensure this is to use the Myers-Briggs system when selecting team members. The system categorizes personalities into sixteen basic personality types. Imagine how myopic a team would be if all its members had the same one.

The old saying "birds of a feather flock together" is true. Unless cautioned to do otherwise, it is human nature for leaders to pick team members who resemble themselves in terms of how they think and act.

Studies show that diversity engenders creativity. As most people already know, a cardinal rule of brainstorming is to respect all points of view. This applies to cross-functional team meetings as well. There are no bad ideas. Anyone who things one has just been floated, should hold his or her tongue. As long as this rule is observed, the more diversity of personnel on any given task, the better the end product will be.

Clearly, with many different points of view, projects may take longer to accomplish, but the end result will have more people committed to it because more people had a chance to influence the process, and there will be a greater sense of pride. Also, a strong leader will have the opportunity to listen to all points of view, then to choose those that appear to hold the most promise and move aggressively and quickly.

At one time or another many managers have been through the management training exercise in which they are lost at sea, or in a desert or on the moon, as the result of a crash. All that's left are a handful of specific items, ranging from a case of scotch, to a small mirror, to a piece of cheese. The task given is to rank-order the items in terms of their importance to survival.

In this exercise each manager must independently come up with his or her own rank order. Then groups of managers are assigned to arrive at some consensus of the ranking. This process parallels real-life group decision making. The players arrive at the meeting with some opinions, a little knowledge, and must react to the people with whom they work to reach a group decision.

The final scores in this training exercise are usually set against some "expert" criteria. Repeatedly, groups that have the widest diversity of knowledge, a group ranging for example from a former Marine who is an expert in desert survival, to an accountant who's never spent a night under the stars, will come up with the list most closely aligned to the "correct" answers. This, of course, is most likely to happen if everyone in the group respects diversity of opinion, and everyone communicates openly and respectfully about their differences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When It Comes to Teamwork, Diversity Prevents Myopia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cross-functional teams can be very effective, particularly when formed to tackle a specific challenge or to capitalize on an opportunity. The question is, what's the best way to set one up and to organize it in a way that will insure the best chance of success?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Information Technology Project Management, 5th Edition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 5th Edition of Jack Marchewka's Information Technology Project Management focuses on how to create measurable organizational value (MOV) through IT projects. The author uses the concept of MOV, combined with his own research, to create a solid foundation for making decisions throughout the project's lifecycle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You were the one promoted to manager, so even if he thinks he knows all, others don't appear to agree. However, you can't let him take control, and refusing to control the situation while in a group is letting him have the control. So, you'll need to start dealing with it (thus, your question).

Here's some advice from Alison Green on dealing with annoying co-workers:

The-Know- it-All

Everyone can benefit from a knowledgeable co-worker, but the one that seems to have done it all or knows everything about anything can be downright annoying. While it may be satisfying to tell that co-worker to shove it, that could land you in hot water with your employer.

How to handle it: Instead of getting angry, Alison Green, writer of the Ask A Manager Blog, advises to just ignore the know-it-all. "The more you can ignore this person and not let them get to you, the better," says Green. When the co-worker offers unsolicited advice, Green said to thank the offender and say you'll consider it. "If you find yourself getting frustrated, comfort yourself with the knowledge that this person is widely considered obnoxious; you're definitely not the only one annoyed."

To add to that, since you're now the manager, go ahead and thank them, and then ask if others have input. In other words, listen and then get others to speak too. If he interrupts them, interrupt him back and say "excuse me, I also wanted to hear what Bob says."

If the interruptions continue, then speak to him privately, and say something like "you interrupt when others are speaking, and that doesn't allow us to work as a team. I would like you both provide input but also to listen to others, and quit interrupting. Can you do that?" And wait for his answer -- it needs to be yes. (If it's no, then a PIP may be in order. Seriously.) You may have to do this a couple of times, especially as it is probably a habit for him. But you need to be clear that others do also speak, and he is to listen and not interrupt when others speak. You may need to privately encourage the others to speak up as well.

It will be a process, but you can only effectively deal with it if you really do deal with it. Avoiding it isn't helping.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to deal with subordinate know-it-all's

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You were the one promoted to manager, so even if he thinks he knows all, others don't appear to agree. However, you can't let him take control, and refusing to control the situation while in a group is letting him have the control. So, you'll need to start dealing with it (thus, your question).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Do you have a coworker who thinks he knows everything? He believes he's the go-to person; the one with the special connections and authority. He acts as though he's been everywhere and has experienced everything. If there's a problem, he has the solution; if there's a question, he has the answer. He isn't open to new ideas or collaborating-and he has strong opinions, which he delivers in an obnoxious manner. Chances are, you've never, ever heard him utter the words "I don't know."

Unfortunately, most employees encounter at least one know-it-all coworker or boss at some point in their career-and they're not always the easiest people to work with, says Nancy Collamer, a career coach and author of Second-Act Careers: 50+ Ways to Profit From Your Passions During Semi-Retirement.

"They tend to monopolize conversations, dismiss input from others and make decisions without first considering all the facts," she says. "A 'my way or the highway' attitude often leads to unhappy coworkers, disgruntled clients, and an unhappy work environment."

Andrew G. Rosen, founder and editor of career advice blog Jobacle.com, says it can be extremely difficult to work with a know-it-all because "they are generally poor listeners, often thinking about what they are going to say next rather than hear what you are saying. Their mindset makes it hard to get through to them that their idea or solution might not be the best one. They have often already formed an opinion and will not be swayed."

Michael Kerr, an international business speaker, president of Humor at Work, and author of The Humor Advantage: Why Some Businesses are Laughing all the Way to the Bank(Dec. 2013), agrees. "Know-it-alls can be extremely frustrating to work with for a number of reasons," he says. "One, they tend to speak more than they listen, so people can be left with the feeling that their opinions or ideas haven't been given a proper hearing. They can often be close-minded as well-which means they can become a severe impediment to the creative process by blocking any idea other than their own. They simply know an idea either will or won't work. Some know-it-alls can come across as opinionated, aggressive, brusque and even loud-all traits that won't win over a lot of people at the office--and in fact can be easily construed as bullying behavior."
Here are eight tips for dealing with a know-it-all coworker:
1. Be empathetic. This coworker may irritate you-but remember that his or her know-it-all attitude is probably stemming from a confidence issue or some deeper personal issue, Rosen says. "Rather than get angry, allow yourself to be empathetic."

2. Pick your battles. "Dealing with a know-it-all can be exhausting and there are times when your best response is to ignore their 'helpful' hints as much as possible," Collamer says. "Deflect their comments with a simple, 'Thanks for that suggestion' instead of engaging them in an ongoing conversation."

3. Lead by example. "A boss or manager, especially, needs to model the behavior that in many circumstances it's not only okay to not know everything, it's encouraged," Kerr says. "Saying 'I don't know, but let's find some answers or get some great ideas' demonstrates that you are flexible and open to other opinions. Saying 'I don't know,' can also build trust by demonstrating openness, vulnerability and honesty."

4. Be armed with your own facts. If you are delivering a presentation, selling an idea or heading into a meeting, be confident in your own facts, Kerr says. "Double check your sources and verify the facts. The more armed you are with knowledge, the less chance the know-it-all has to interject or one up you."

When in meetings, stick to an agenda (passed around ahead of time) that provides a set amount of time for each person to speak, Collamer adds. "Come prepared with facts and statistics in writing, so in the event 'Mr. Know-it-all' doesn't let you get a word in edgewise, you have something in writing to share with the team. The better prepared you are, the less room there will be for the know-it-all to commandeer the discussion."

5. Keep your sense of humor. Kerr says know-it-alls can be highly defensive, and at times aggressive; the last thing you want to do is to make them feel backed into a corner.

"Although it's highly tempting to use sarcasm with a know-it-all, this will undoubtedly backfire. Instead, take a deep breath, smile and do your best Johnny Carson impersonation, 'I did not know that. That is weird, wild stuff.' Laugh it off by reminding yourself that often their behavior is harmless and they don't really mean anything by it. A friendly, 'Okay, I want you on my Trivial Pursuit team' can disarm a potentially tense situation."

6. Ask probing questions. Be respectful, but ask detailed question to peel back the layers of a know-it-all's stance, Kerr suggests. "Ask why they believe something to be true or where they found their sources," he says. "Asking pointed questions on specific details can teach a know-it-all over time that they need to have their facts in order before speaking out."

Lynn Taylor, a national workplace expert and author of Tame Your Terrible Office Tyrant; How to Manage Childish Boss Behavior and Thrive in Your Job, concurs. She says you shouldn't be afraid to confront the know-it-all coworker and question further where their expertise or authority is coming from.

7. Take the person aside and offer constructive feedback on their behavior. "Recognize that it's possible that Ms. Know-it-all may be clueless about the impact of her behavior on others," Collamer says. "If you suspect that's the case, consider gently pointing this out during a private discussion away from the office."

Kerr adds: "Although this can be tricky, if you do it in a respectful way it can help. Keep in mind that many know-it-alls may be highly insecure, so stroke their ego, flatter them on their range of knowledge, but caution them as to how their communication style may be coming across to other people." Remind them how important it is for less confident people than themselves to be able to speak up.

8. Avoid involving your boss unless the know-it-all is truly threatening your success. "If that becomes necessary, maintain a positive tone and instead of complaining about the person, focus on what you're willing to do to make sure the work is done well," says Isa Adney, author of How to Get a Job Without a Resume and the blog firstjoboutofcollege.com.

Collamer agrees. "If the situation really becomes unbearable, talk it over with your boss and let him or her know how the know-it-all's behavior is impacting the team and work environment."

--

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Tips For Dealing With A Know-It-All Coworker

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do you have a coworker who thinks he knows everything? If there's a problem, he has the solution; if there's a question, he has the answer. He acts as though he's been everywhere and has experienced everything--and he's extremely opinionated. Here are eight tips for dealing with a know-it-all coworker.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Print this page
by Stephen Hawley Martin

Cross-functional teams can be extremely effective, particularly in tackling a specific challenge or opportunity. But what's the best way to set one up and to organize it to ensure the maximum chance of success?

Team members should be chosen by a team leader appointed by management. Giving the leader the authority to choose the team will heighten his or her sense of accountability for getting the task done. But the leader should be cautioned to be sure the team has the diversity of members it needs. The following example demonstrates why.

For example, a team was formed in response to a reader survey that had evaluated a newspaper's entertainment section. The paper was one of several competing in a large metropolitan area. The team included representatives from editorial, production and distribution. No one from advertising sales was asked to participate.

The team decided to integrate national entertainment news with local art events, plays and concerts. What looked to be a lively and dynamic new section was created. But after a few months the team was reconvened. The product had minimal advertising support.

This time, the team pulled in a representative from advertising. Prospective advertisers for the section were surveyed and the problem identified. The new section was in a tabloid format, which uses full newspaper pages turned on their sides and folded to make a dimensionally smaller section than the rest of the paper. Since there was more than one newspaper serving the area, this required advertisers to design specific ads to fit this section, or to rescale existing ads that had been created to run on full-size pages. Many of the advertisers surveyed did not want to go to this trouble and expense.

The section's design was changed to a full-size format and immediately began attracting more advertising. If the team had included a representative from advertising in the beginning, it might have avoided unnecessary work and loss of revenue.

This underscores the value of diversity on cross-functional teams. Diversity should not be just about race, gender, age, or sexual orientation. According to William T. Monahan, former Imation CEO and author of "Billion Dollar Turnaround: The 3M Spinoff That Became Imation," when it comes to finding innovative solutions, diversity of thought is as important as other differences. He points out that the Myers-Briggs system for categorizing personalities contains sixteen basic types. Imagine how myopic a team would be if all its leaders had the same one.

The old saying "birds of a feather flock together" is true. Unless cautioned to do otherwise, it is human nature for leaders to pick team members who resemble their own personality type.

Studies show that diversity engenders creativity. The more diversity of personnel on any given task, the better the final product will be if differences are respected, authenticated and integrated. Communication must also be open.

With many different points of view, projects may take longer to accomplish, but the end result will have more people committed to it because more people had a chance to influence the process. Also, a strong leader will have the opportunity to listen to all points of view, then to choose and move aggressively and quickly.

At one time or another most managers have been through the management training exercise in which they are lost at sea or a desert after a crash. All that's left are a handful of specific items, ranging from a case of scotch to a small mirror or a piece of cheese. Then managers must rank the items in terms of their importance to survival.

In this exercise each manager must independently come up with his or her own rankings. Then groups of managers are assigned to arrive at some consensus. This process parallels real-life group decision making.

The final scores in this training exercise are usually set against some "expert" criteria. Repeatedly, groups that have the widest diversity of knowledge - a group ranging for example from a former Marine who's an expert in desert survival to an accountant who's never spent a night under the stars - will come up with the list most closely aligned to the "correct" answers.
Stephen Hawley Martin is a former principal of The Martin Agency in Richmond and author of more than a half dozen books including his newest, Lead Enterprise Leader: How to Get Things Done Without Doing It All Yourself.
He is editor and publisher of The Oaklea Press, a book publishing business dedicated primarily to helping business executives increase productivity. He can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When it comes to teamwork, diversity prevents myopia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Print this page by Stephen Hawley Martin Cross-functional teams can be extremely effective, particularly in tackling a specific challenge or opportunity. But what's the best way to set one up and to organize it to ensure the maximum chance of success? Team members should be chosen by a team leader appointed by management.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every major industry was once a growth industry. But some that are now riding a wave of growth enthusiasm are very much in the shadow of decline. Others that are thought of as seasoned growth industries have actually stopped growing. In every case, the reason growth is threatened, slowed, or stopped is not because the market is saturated. It is because there has been a failure of management.

Fateful Purposes

The failure is at the top. The executives responsible for it, in the last analysis, are those who deal with broad aims and policies. Thus:

The railroads did not stop growing because the need for passenger and freight transportation declined. That grew. The railroads are in trouble today not because that need was filled by others (cars, trucks, airplanes, and even telephones) but because it was not filled by the railroads themselves. They let others take customers away from them because they assumed themselves to be in the railroad business rather than in the transportation business. The reason they defined their industry incorrectly was that they were railroad oriented instead of transportation oriented; they were product oriented instead of customer oriented.

Hollywood barely escaped being totally ravished by television. Actually, all the established film companies went through drastic reorganizations. Some simply disappeared. All of them got into trouble not because of TV's inroads but because of their own myopia. As with the railroads, Hollywood defined its business incorrectly. It thought it was in the movie business when it was actually in the entertainment business. "Movies" implied a specific, limited product. This produced a fatuous contentment that from the beginning led producers to view TV as a threat. Hollywood scorned and rejected TV when it should have welcomed it as an opportunity-an opportunity to expand the entertainment business.

Today, TV is a bigger business than the old narrowly defined movie business ever was. Had Hollywood been customer oriented (providing entertainment) rather than product oriented (making movies), would it have gone through the fiscal purgatory that it did? I doubt it. What ultimately saved Hollywood and accounted for its resurgence was the wave of new young writers, producers, and directors whose previous successes in television had decimated the old movie companies and toppled the big movie moguls.

There are other, less obvious examples of industries that have been and are now endangering their futures by improperly defining their purposes. I shall discuss some of them in detail later and analyze the kind of policies that lead to trouble. Right now, it may help to show what a thoroughly customer-oriented management can do to keep a growth industry growing, even after the obvious opportunities have been exhausted, and here there are two examples that have been around for a long time. They are nylon and glass-specifically, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and Corning Glass Works.

Both companies have great technical competence. Their product orientation is unquestioned. But this alone does not explain their success. After all, who was more pridefully product oriented and product conscious than the erstwhile New England textile companies that have been so thoroughly massacred? The DuPonts and the Cornings have succeeded not primarily because of their product or research orientation but because they have been thoroughly customer oriented also. It is constant watchfulness for opportunities to apply their technical know-how to the creation of customer-satisfying uses that accounts for their prodigious output of successful new products. Without a very sophisticated eye on the customer, most of their new products might have been wrong, their sales methods useless.

Aluminum has also continued to be a growth industry, thanks to the efforts of two wartime-created companies that deliberately set about inventing new customer-satisfying uses. Without Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation and Reynolds Metals Company, the total demand for aluminum today would be vastly less.

Error of Analysis.

Some may argue that it is foolish to set the railroads off against aluminum or the movies off against glass. Are not aluminum and glass naturally so versatile that the industries are bound to have more growth opportunities than the railroads and the movies? This view commits precisely the error I have been talking about. It defines an industry or a product or a cluster of know-how so narrowly as to guarantee its premature senescence. When we mention "railroads," we should make sure we mean "transportation." As transporters, the railroads still have a good chance for very considerable growth. They are not limited to the railroad business as such (though in my opinion, rail transportation is potentially a much stronger transportation medium than is generally believed).

What the railroads lack is not opportunity but some of the managerial imaginativeness and audacity that made them great. Even an amateur like Jacques Barzun can see what is lacking when he says, "I grieve to see the most advanced physical and social organization of the last century go down in shabby disgrace for lack of the same comprehensive imagination that built it up. [What is lacking is] the will of the companies to survive and to satisfy the public by inventiveness and skill." ¹

Shadow of Obsolescence

It is impossible to mention a single major industry that did not at one time qualify for the magic appellation of "growth industry." In each case, the industry's assumed strength lay in the apparently unchallenged superiority of its product. There appeared to be no effective substitute for it. It was itself a runaway substitute for the product it so triumphantly replaced. Yet one after another of these celebrated industries has come under a shadow. Let us look briefly at a few more of them, this time taking examples that have so far received a little less attention.

Dry Cleaning.

This was once a growth industry with lavish prospects. In an age of wool garments, imagine being finally able to get them clean safely and easily. The boom was on. Yet here we are 30 years after the boom started, and the industry is in trouble. Where has the competition come from? From a better way of cleaning? No. It has come from synthetic fibers and chemical additives that have cut the need for dry cleaning. But this is only the beginning. Lurking in the wings and ready to make chemical dry cleaning totally obsolete is that powerful magician, ultrasonics.

Electric Utilities.

This is another one of those supposedly "no substitute" products that has been enthroned on a pedestal of invincible growth. When the incandescent lamp came along, kerosene lights were finished. Later, the waterwheel and the steam engine were cut to ribbons by the flexibility, reliability, simplicity, and just plain easy availability of electric motors. The prosperity of electric utilities continues to wax extravagant as the home is converted into a museum of electric gadgetry. How can anybody miss by investing in utilities, with no competition, nothing but growth ahead?

But a second look is not quite so comforting. A score of nonutility companies are well advanced toward developing a powerful chemical fuel cell, which could sit in some hidden closet of every home silently ticking off electric power. The electric lines that vulgarize so many neighborhoods would be eliminated. So would the endless demolition of streets and service interruptions during storms. Also on the horizon is solar energy, again pioneered by nonutility companies.

Who says that the utilities have no competition? They may be natural monopolies now, but tomorrow they may be natural deaths. To avoid this prospect, they too will have to develop fuel cells, solar energy, and other power sources. To survive, they themselves will have to plot the obsolescence of what now produces their livelihood.

Grocery Stores.

Many people find it hard to realize that there ever was a thriving establishment known as the "corner store." The supermarket took over with a powerful effectiveness. Yet the big food chains of the 1930s narrowly escaped being completely wiped out by the aggressive expansion of independent supermarkets. The first genuine supermarket was opened in 1930, in Jamaica, Long Island. By 1933, supermarkets were thriving in California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. Yet the established chains pompously ignored them. When they chose to notice them, it was with such derisive descriptions as "cheapy," "horse-and-buggy," "cracker-barrel storekeeping," and "unethical opportunists."

The executive of one big chain announced at the time that he found it "hard to believe that people will drive for miles to shop for foods and sacrifice the personal service chains have perfected and to which [the consumer] is accustomed." ² As late as 1936, the National Wholesale Grocers convention and the New Jersey Retail Grocers Association said there was nothing to fear. They said that the supers' narrow appeal to the price buyer limited the size of their market. They had to draw from miles around. When imitators came, there would be wholesale liquidations as volume fell. The high sales of the supers were said to be partly due to their novelty. People wanted convenient neighborhood grocers. If the neighborhood stores would "cooperate with their suppliers, pay attention to their costs, and improve their service," they would be able to weather the competition until it blew over. ³

It never blew over. The chains discovered that survival required going into the supermarket business. This meant the wholesale destruction of their huge investments in corner store sites and in established distribution and merchandising methods. The companies with "the courage of their convictions" resolutely stuck to the corner store philosophy. They kept their pride but lost their shirts.

A Self-Deceiving Cycle.

But memories are short. For example, it is hard for people who today confidently hail the twin messiahs of electronics and chemicals to see how things could possibly go wrong with these galloping industries. They probably also cannot see how a reasonably sensible businessperson could have been as myopic as the famous Boston millionaire who early in the twentieth century unintentionally sentenced his heirs to poverty by stipulating that his entire estate be forever invested exclusively in electric streetcar securities. His posthumous declaration, "There will always be a big demand for efficient urban transportation," is no consolation to his heirs, who sustain life by pumping gasoline at automobile filling stations.

Yet, in a casual survey I took among a group of intelligent business executives, nearly half agreed that it would be hard to hurt their heirs by tying their estates forever to the electronics industry. When I then confronted them with the Boston streetcar example, they chorused unanimously, "That's different!" But is it? Is not the basic situation identical?

In truth, there is no such thing as a growth industry, I believe. There are only companies organized and operated to create and capitalize on growth opportunities. Industries that assume themselves to be riding some automatic growth escalator invariably descend into stagnation. The history of every dead and dying "growth" industry shows a self-deceiving cycle of bountiful expansion and undetected decay. There are four conditions that usually guarantee this cycle:

1. The belief that growth is assured by an expanding and more affluent population;

2. The belief that there is no competitive substitute for the industry's major product;

3. Too much faith in mass production and in the advantages of rapidly declining unit costs as output rises;

4. Preoccupation with a product that lends itself to carefully controlled scientific experimentation, improvement, and manufacturing cost reduction.

I should like now to examine each of these conditions in some detail. To build my case as boldly as possible, I shall illustrate the points with reference to three industries: petroleum, automobiles, and electronics. I'll focus on petroleum in particular, because it spans more years and more vicissitudes. Not only do these three industries have excellent reputations with the general public and also enjoy the confidence of sophisticated investors, but their managements have become known for progressive thinking in areas like financial control, product research, and management training. If obsolescence can cripple even these industries, it can happen anywhere.

Population Myth

The belief that profits are assured by an expanding and more affluent population is dear to the heart of every industry. It takes the edge off the apprehensions everybody understandably feels about the future. If consumers are multiplying and also buying more of your product or service, you can face the future with considerably more comfort than if the market were shrinking. An expanding market keeps the manufacturer from having to think very hard or imaginatively. If thinking is an intellectual response to a problem, then the absence of a problem leads to the absence of thinking. If your product has an automatically expanding market, then you will not give much thought to how to expand it.

One of the most interesting examples of this is provided by the petroleum industry. Probably our oldest growth industry, it has an enviable record. While there are some current concerns about its growth rate, the industry itself tends to be optimistic.

But I believe it can be demonstrated that it is undergoing a fundamental yet typical change. It is not only ceasing to be a growth industry but may actually be a declining one, relative to other businesses. Although there is widespread unawareness of this fact, it is conceivable that in time, the oil industry may find itself in much the same position of retrospective glory that the railroads are now in. Despite its pioneering work in developing and applying the present-value method of investment evaluation, in employee relations, and in working with developing countries, the petroleum business is a distressing example of how complacency and wrongheadedness can stubbornly convert opportunity into near disaster.

One of the characteristics of this and other industries that have believed very strongly in the beneficial consequences of an expanding population, while at the same time having a generic product for which there has appeared to be no competitive substitute, is that the individual companies have sought to outdo their competitors by improving on what they are already doing. This makes sense, of course, if one assumes that sales are tied to the country's population strings, because the customer can compare products only on a feature-by-feature basis. I believe it is significant, for example, that not since John D. Rockefeller sent free kerosene lamps to China has the oil industry done anything really outstanding to create a demand for its product. Not even in product improvement has it showered itself with eminence. The greatest single improvement-the development of tetraethyl lead-came from outside the industry, specifically from General Motors and DuPont. The big contributions made by the industry itself are confined to the technology of oil exploration, oil production, and oil refining.

Asking for Trouble.

In other words, the petroleum industry's efforts have focused on improving the efficiency of getting and making its product, not really on improving the generic product or its marketing. Moreover, its chief product has continually been defined in the narrowest possible terms-namely, gasoline, not energy, fuel, or transportation. This attitude has helped assure that:

Major improvements in gasoline quality tend not to originate in the oil industry. The development of superior alternative fuels also comes from outside the oil industry, as will be shown later.

Major innovations in automobile fuel marketing come from small, new oil companies that are not primarily preoccupied with production or refining. These are the companies that have been responsible for the rapidly expanding multipump gasoline stations, with their successful emphasis on large and clean layouts, rapid and efficient driveway service, and quality gasoline at low prices.

Thus, the oil industry is asking for trouble from outsiders. Sooner or later, in this land of hungry investors and entrepreneurs, a threat is sure to come. The possibility of this will become more apparent when we turn to the next dangerous belief of many managements. For the sake of continuity, because this second belief is tied closely to the first, I shall continue with the same example.

The Idea of Indispensability.

The petroleum industry is pretty much convinced that there is no competitive substitute for its major product, gasoline-or, if there is, that it will continue to be a derivative of crude oil, such as diesel fuel or kerosene jet fuel.

There is a lot of automatic wishful thinking in this assumption. The trouble is that most refining companies own huge amounts of crude oil reserves. These have value only if there is a market for products into which oil can be converted. Hence the tenacious belief in the continuing competitive superiority of automobile fuels made from crude oil.

This idea persists despite all historic evidence against it. The evidence not only shows that oil has never been a superior product for any purpose for very long but also that the oil industry has never really been a growth industry. Rather, it has been a succession of different businesses that have gone through the usual historic cycles of growth, maturity, and decay. The industry's overall survival is owed to a series of miraculous escapes from total obsolescence, of last-minute and unexpected reprieves from total disaster reminiscent of the perils of Pauline.

The Perils of Petroleum.

To illustrate, I shall sketch in only the main episodes. First, crude oil was largely a patent medicine. But even before that fad ran out, demand was greatly expanded by the use of oil in kerosene lamps. The prospect of lighting the world's lamps gave rise to an extravagant promise of growth. The prospects were similar to those the industry now holds for gasoline in other parts of the world. It can hardly wait for the underdeveloped nations to get a car in every garage.

In the days of the kerosene lamp, the oil companies competed with each other and against gaslight by trying to improve the illuminating characteristics of kerosene. Then suddenly the impossible happened. Edison invented a light that was totally nondependent on crude oil. Had it not been for the growing use of kerosene in space heaters, the incandescent lamp would have completely finished oil as a growth industry at that time. Oil would have been good for little else than axle grease.

Then disaster and reprieve struck again. Two great innovations occurred, neither originating in the oil industry. First, the successful development of coal-burning domestic central-heating systems made the space heater obsolete. While the industry reeled, along came its most magnificent boost yet: the internal combustion engine, also invented by outsiders. Then, when the prodigious expansion for gasoline finally began to level off in the 1920s, along came the miraculous escape of the central oil heater. Once again, the escape was provided by an outsider's invention and development. And when that market weakened, wartime demand for aviation fuel came to the rescue. After the war, the expansion of civilian aviation, the dieselization of railroads, and the explosive demand for cars and trucks kept the industry's growth in high gear.

Meanwhile, centralized oil heating-whose boom potential had only recently been proclaimed-ran into severe competition from natural gas. While the oil companies themselves owned the gas that now competed with their oil, the industry did not originate the natural gas revolution, nor has it to this day greatly profited from its gas ownership. The gas revolution was made by newly formed transmission companies that marketed the product with an aggressive ardor. They started a magnificent new industry, first against the advice and then against the resistance of the oil companies.

By all the logic of the situation, the oil companies themselves should have made the gas revolution. They not only owned the gas, they also were the only people experienced in handling, scrubbing, and using it and the only people experienced in pipeline technology and transmission. They also understood heating problems. But, partly because they knew that natural gas would compete with their own sale of heating oil, the oil companies pooh-poohed the potential of gas. The revolution was finally started by oil pipeline executives who, unable to persuade their own companies to go into gas, quit and organized the spectacularly successful gas transmission companies. Even after their success became painfully evident to the oil companies, the latter did not go into gas transmission. The multibillion-dollar business that should have been theirs went to others. As in the past, the industry was blinded by its narrow preoccupation with a specific product and the value of its reserves. It paid little or no attention to its customers' basic needs and preferences.

The postwar years have not witnessed any change. Immediately after World War II, the oil industry was greatly encouraged about its future by the rapid increase in demand for its traditional line of products. In 1950, most companies projected annual rates of domestic expansion of around 6% through at least 1975. Though the ratio of crude oil reserves to demand in the free world was about 20 to 1, with 10 to 1 being usually considered a reasonable working ratio in the United States, booming demand sent oil explorers searching for more without sufficient regard to what the future really promised. In 1952, they "hit" in the Middle East; the ratio skyrocketed to 42 to 1. If gross additions to reserves continue at the average rate of the past five years (37 billion barrels annually), then by 1970, the reserve ratio will be up to 45 to 1. This abundance of oil has weakened crude and product prices all over the world.

An Uncertain Future.

Management cannot find much consolation today in the rapidly expanding petrochemical industry, another oil-using idea that did not originate in the leading firms. The total U.S. production of petrochemicals is equivalent to about 2% (by volume) of the demand for all petroleum products. Although the petrochemical industry is now expected to grow by about 10% per year, this will not offset other drains on the growth of crude oil consumption. Furthermore, while petrochemical products are many and growing, it is important to remember that there are nonpetroleum sources of the basic raw material, such as coal. Besides, a lot of plastics can be produced with relatively little oil. A 50,000-barrel-per-day oil refinery is now considered the absolute minimum size for efficiency. But a 5,000-barrel-per-day chemical plant is a giant operation.

Oil has never been a continuously strong growth industry. It has grown by fits and starts, always miraculously saved by innovations and developments not of its own making. The reason it has not grown in a smooth progression is that each time it thought it had a superior product safe from the possibility of competitive substitutes, the product turned out to be inferior and notoriously subject to obsolescence. Until now, gasoline (for motor fuel, anyhow) has escaped this fate. But, as we shall see later, it too may be on its last legs.

The point of all this is that there is no guarantee against product obsolescence. If a company's own research does not make a product obsolete, another's will. Unless an industry is especially lucky, as oil has been until now, it can easily go down in a sea of red figures-just as the railroads have, as the buggy whip manufacturers have, as the corner grocery chains have, as most of the big movie companies have, and, indeed, as many other industries have.

The best way for a firm to be lucky is to make its own luck. That requires knowing what makes a business successful. One of the greatest enemies of this knowledge is mass production.

Production Pressures

Mass production industries are impelled by a great drive to produce all they can. The prospect of steeply declining unit costs as output rises is more than most companies can usually resist. The profit possibilities look spectacular. All effort focuses on production. The result is that marketing gets neglected.

John Kenneth Galbraith contends that just the opposite occurs. ⁴ Output is so prodigious that all effort concentrates on trying to get rid of it. He says this accounts for singing commercials, the desecration of the countryside with advertising signs, and other wasteful and vulgar practices. Galbraith has a finger on something real, but he misses the strategic point. Mass production does indeed generate great pressure to "move" the product. But what usually gets emphasized is selling, not marketing. Marketing, a more sophisticated and complex process, gets ignored.

The difference between marketing and selling is more than semantic. Selling focuses on the needs of the seller, marketing on the needs of the buyer. Selling is preoccupied with the seller's need to convert the product into cash, marketing with the idea of satisfying the needs of the customer by means of the product and the whole cluster of things associated with creating, delivering, and, finally, consuming it.

In some industries, the enticements of full mass production have been so powerful that top management in effect has told the sales department, "You get rid of it; we'll worry about profits." By contrast, a truly marketing-minded firm tries to create value-satisfying goods and services that consumers will want to buy. What it offers for sale includes not only the generic product or service but also how it is made available to the customer, in what form, when, under what conditions, and at what terms of trade. Most important, what it offers for sale is determined not by the seller but by the buyer. The seller takes cues from the buyer in such a way that the product becomes a consequence of the marketing effort, not vice versa.

A Lag in Detroit.

This may sound like an elementary rule of business, but that does not keep it from being violated wholesale. It is certainly more violated than honored. Take the automobile industry.

Here mass production is most famous, most honored, and has the greatest impact on the entire society. The industry has hitched its fortune to the relentless requirements of the annual model change, a policy that makes customer orientation an especially urgent necessity. Consequently, the auto companies annually spend millions of dollars on consumer research. But the fact that the new compact cars are selling so well in their first year indicates that Detroit's vast researches have for a long time failed to reveal what customers really wanted. Detroit was not convinced that people wanted anything different from what they had been getting until it lost millions of customers to other small-car manufacturers.

How could this unbelievable lag behind consumer wants have been perpetuated for so long? Why did not research reveal consumer preferences before consumers' buying decisions themselves revealed the facts? Is that not what consumer research is for-to find out before the fact what is going to happen? The answer is that Detroit never really researched customers' wants. It only researched their preferences between the kinds of things it had already decided to offer them. For Detroit is mainly product oriented, not customer oriented. To the extent that the customer is recognized as having needs that the manufacturer should try to satisfy, Detroit usually acts as if the job can be done entirely by product changes. Occasionally, attention gets paid to financing, too, but that is done more in order to sell than to enable the customer to buy.

As for taking care of other customer needs, there is not enough being done to write about. The areas of the greatest unsatisfied needs are ignored or, at best, get stepchild attention. These are at the point of sale and on the matter of automotive repair and maintenance. Detroit views these problem areas as being of secondary importance. That is underscored by the fact that the retailing and servicing ends of this industry are neither owned and operated nor controlled by the manufacturers. Once the car is produced, things are pretty much in the dealer's inadequate hands. Illustrative of Detroit's arms-length attitude is the fact that, while servicing holds enormous sales-stimulating, profit-building opportunities, only 57 of Chevrolet's 7,000 dealers provide night maintenance service.

Motorists repeatedly express their dissatisfaction with servicing and their apprehensions about buying cars under the present selling setup. The anxieties and problems they encounter during the auto buying and maintenance processes are probably more intense and widespread today than many years ago. Yet the automobile companies do not seem to listen to or take their cues from the anguished consumer. If they do listen, it must be through the filter of their own preoccupation with production. The marketing effort is still viewed as a necessary consequence of the product-not vice versa, as it should be. That is the legacy of mass production, with its parochial view that profit resides essentially in low-cost full production.

What Ford Put First.

The profit lure of mass production obviously has a place in the plans and strategy of business management, but it must always follow hard thinking about the customer. This is one of the most important lessons we can learn from the contradictory behavior of Henry Ford. In a sense, Ford was both the most brilliant and the most senseless marketer in American history. He was senseless because he refused to give the customer anything but a black car. He was brilliant because he fashioned a production system designed to fit market needs. We habitually celebrate him for the wrong reason: for his production genius. His real genius was marketing. We think he was able to cut his selling price and therefore sell millions of $500 cars because his invention of the assembly line had reduced the costs. Actually, he invented the assembly line because he had concluded that at $500 he could sell millions of cars. Mass production was the result, not the cause, of his low prices.

Ford emphasized this point repeatedly, but a nation of production-oriented business managers refuses to hear the great lesson he taught. Here is his operating philosophy as he expressed it succinctly:

Our policy is to reduce the price, extend the operations, and improve the article. You will notice that the reduction of price comes first. We have never considered any costs as fixed. Therefore we first reduce the price to the point where we believe more sales will result. Then we go ahead and try to make the prices. We do not bother about the costs. The new price forces the costs down. The more usual way is to take the costs and then determine the price; and although that method may be scientific in the narrow sense, it is not scientific in the broad sense, because what earthly use is it to know the cost if it tells you that you cannot manufacture at a price at which the article can be sold? But more to the point is the fact that, although one may calculate what a cost is, and of course all of our costs are carefully calculated, no one knows what a cost ought to be. One of the ways of discovering...is to name a price so low as to force everybody in the place to the highest point of efficiency. The low price makes everybody dig for profits. We make more discoveries concerning manufacturing and selling under this forced method than by any method of leisurely investigation. 5

Product Provincialism.

The tantalizing profit possibilities of low unit production costs may be the most seriously self-deceiving attitude that can afflict a company, particularly a "growth" company, where an apparently assured expansion of demand already tends to undermine a proper concern for the importance of marketing and the customer.

The usual result of this narrow preoccupation with so-called concrete matters is that instead of growing, the industry declines. It usually means that the product fails to adapt to the constantly changing patterns of consumer needs and tastes, to new and modified marketing institutions and practices, or to product developments in competing or complementary industries. The industry has its eyes so firmly on its own specific product that it does not see how it is being made obsolete.

The classic example of this is the buggy whip industry. No amount of product improvement could stave off its death sentence. But had the industry defined itself as being in the transportation business rather than in the buggy whip business, it might have survived. It would have done what survival always entails-that is, change. Even if it had only defined its business as providing a stimulant or catalyst to an energy source, it might have survived by becoming a manufacturer of, say, fan belts or air cleaners.

What may someday be a still more classic example is, again, the oil industry. Having let others steal marvelous opportunities from it (including natural gas, as already mentioned; missile fuels; and jet engine lubricants), one would expect it to have taken steps never to let that happen again. But this is not the case. We are now seeing extraordinary new developments in fuel systems specifically designed to power automobiles. Not only are these developments concentrated in firms outside the petroleum industry, but petroleum is almost systematically ignoring them, securely content in its wedded bliss to oil. It is the story of the kerosene lamp versus the incandescent lamp all over again. Oil is trying to improve hydrocarbon fuels rather than develop any fuels best suited to the needs of their users, whether or not made in different ways and with different raw materials from oil.

Here are some things that nonpetroleum companies are working on:

More than a dozen such firms now have advanced working models of energy systems which, when perfected, will replace the internal combustion engine and eliminate the demand for gasoline. The superior merit of each of these systems is their elimination of frequent, time-consuming, and irritating refueling stops. Most of these systems are fuel cells designed to create electrical energy directly from chemicals without combustion. Most of them use chemicals that are not derived from oil-generally, hydrogen and oxygen.

Several other companies have advanced models of electric storage batteries designed to power automobiles. One of these is an aircraft producer that is working jointly with several electric utility companies. The latter hope to use off-peak generating capacity to supply overnight plug-in battery regeneration. Another company, also using the battery approach, is a medium-sized electronics firm with extensive small-battery experience that it developed in connection with its work on hearing aids. It is collaborating with an automobile manufacturer. Recent improvements arising from the need for high-powered miniature power storage plants in rockets have put us within reach of a relatively small battery capable of withstanding great overloads or surges of power. Germanium diode applications and batteries using sintered plate and nickel cadmium techniques promise to make a revolution in our energy sources.

Solar energy conversion systems are also getting increasing attention. One usually cautious Detroit auto executive recently ventured that solar-powered cars might be common by 1980.

Essential Background

Competitive Strategy Feature

They determine the long-run profitability of any industry.

As for the oil companies, they are more or less "watching developments," as one research director put it to me. A few are doing a bit of research on fuel cells, but this research is almost always confined to developing cells powered by hydrocarbon chemicals. None of them is enthusiastically researching fuel cells, batteries, or solar power plants. None of them is spending a fraction as much on research in these profoundly important areas as it is on the usual run-of-the-mill things like reducing combustion chamber deposits in gasoline engines. One major integrated petroleum company recently took a tentative look at the fuel cell and concluded that although "the companies actively working on it indicate a belief in ultimate success...the timing and magnitude of its impact are too remote to warrant recognition in our forecasts."

One might, of course, ask, Why should the oil companies do anything different? Would not chemical fuel cells, batteries, or solar energy kill the present product lines? The answer is that they would indeed, and that is precisely the reason for the oil firms' having to develop these power units before their competitors do, so they will not be companies without an industry.

Management might be more likely to do what is needed for its own preservation if it thought of itself as being in the energy business. But even that will not be enough if it persists in imprisoning itself in the narrow grip of its tight product orientation. It has to think of itself as taking care of customer needs, not finding, refining, or even selling oil. Once it genuinely thinks of its business as taking care of people's transportation needs, nothing can stop it from creating its own extravagantly profitable growth.

Creative Destruction.

Since words are cheap and deeds are dear, it may be appropriate to indicate what this kind of thinking involves and leads to. Let us start at the beginning: the customer. It can be shown that motorists strongly dislike the bother, delay, and experience of buying gasoline. People actually do not buy gasoline. They cannot see it, taste it, feel it, appreciate it, or really test it. What they buy is the right to continue driving their cars. The gas station is like a tax collector to whom people are compelled to pay a periodic toll as the price of using their cars. This makes the gas station a basically unpopular institution. It can never be made popular or pleasant, only less unpopular, less unpleasant.

Reducing its unpopularity completely means eliminating it. Nobody likes a tax collector, not even a pleasantly cheerful one. Nobody likes to interrupt a trip to buy a phantom product, not even from a handsome Adonis or a seductive Venus. Hence, companies that are working on exotic fuel substitutes that will eliminate the need for frequent refueling are heading directly into the outstretched arms of the irritated motorist. They are riding a wave of inevitability, not because they are creating something that is technologically superior or more sophisticated but because they are satisfying a powerful customer need. They are also eliminating noxious odors and air pollution.

Once the petroleum companies recognize the customer-satisfying logic of what another power system can do, they will see that they have no more choice about working on an efficient, long-lasting fuel (or some way of delivering present fuels without bothering the motorist) than the big food chains had a choice about going into the supermarket business or the vacuum tube companies had a choice about making semiconductors. For their own good, the oil firms will have to destroy their own highly profitable assets. No amount of wishful thinking can save them from the necessity of engaging in this form of "creative destruction."

I phrase the need as strongly as this because I think management must make quite an effort to break itself loose from conventional ways. It is all too easy in this day and age for a company or industry to let its sense of purpose become dominated by the economies of full production and to develop a dangerously lopsided product orientation. In short, if management lets itself drift, it invariably drifts in the direction of thinking of itself as producing goods and services, not customer satisfactions. While it probably will not descend to the depths of telling its salespeople, "You get rid of it; we'll worry about profits," it can, without knowing it, be practicing precisely that formula for withering decay. The historic fate of one growth industry after another has been its suicidal product provincialism.

Dangers of R&D

Another big danger to a firm's continued growth arises when top management is wholly transfixed by the profit possibilities of technical research and development. To illustrate, I shall turn first to a new industry-electronics-and then return once more to the oil companies. By comparing a fresh example with a familiar one, I hope to emphasize the prevalence and insidiousness of a hazardous way of thinking.

Marketing Shortchanged.

In the case of electronics, the greatest danger that faces the glamorous new companies in this field is not that they do not pay enough attention to research and development but that they pay too much attention to it. And the fact that the fastest-growing electronics firms owe their eminence to their heavy emphasis on technical research is completely beside the point. They have vaulted to affluence on a sudden crest of unusually strong general receptiveness to new technical ideas. Also, their success has been shaped in the virtually guaranteed market of military subsidies and by military orders that in many cases actually preceded the existence of facilities to make the products. Their expansion has, in other words, been almost totally devoid of marketing effort.

Thus, they are growing up under conditions that come dangerously close to creating the illusion that a superior product will sell itself. It is not surprising that, having created a successful company by making a superior product, management continues to be oriented toward the product rather than the people who consume it. It develops the philosophy that continued growth is a matter of continued product innovation and improvement.

A number of other factors tend to strengthen and sustain this belief:

1. Because electronic products are highly complex and sophisticated, managements become top-heavy with engineers and scientists. This creates a selective bias in favor of research and production at the expense of marketing. The organization tends to view itself as making things rather than as satisfying customer needs. Marketing gets treated as a residual activity, "something else" that must be done once the vital job of product creation and production is completed.

2. To this bias in favor of product research, development, and production is added the bias in favor of dealing with controllable variables. Engineers and scientists are at home in the world of concrete things like machines, test tubes, production lines, and even balance sheets. The abstractions to which they feel kindly are those that are testable or manipulatable in the laboratory or, if not testable, then functional, such as Euclid's axioms. In short, the managements of the new glamour-growth companies tend to favor business activities that lend themselves to careful study, experimentation, and control-the hard, practical realities of the lab, the shop, and the books.

What gets shortchanged are the realities of the market. Consumers are unpredictable, varied, fickle, stupid, shortsighted, stubborn, and generally bothersome. This is not what the engineer managers say, but deep down in their consciousness, it is what they believe. And this accounts for their concentration on what they know and what they can control-namely, product research, engineering, and production. The emphasis on production becomes particularly attractive when the product can be made at declining unit costs. There is no more inviting way of making money than by running the plant full blast.

The top-heavy science-engineering-production orientation of so many electronics companies works reasonably well today because they are pushing into new frontiers in which the armed services have pioneered virtually assured markets. The companies are in the felicitous position of having to fill, not find, markets, of not having to discover what the customer needs and wants but of having the customer voluntarily come forward with specific new product demands. If a team of consultants had been assigned specifically to design a business situation calculated to prevent the emergence and development of a customer-oriented marketing viewpoint, it could not have produced anything better than the conditions just described.

Stepchild Treatment.

The oil industry is a stunning example of how science, technology, and mass production can divert an entire group of companies from their main task. To the extent the consumer is studied at all (which is not much), the focus is forever on getting information that is designed to help the oil companies improve what they are now doing. They try to discover more convincing advertising themes, more effective sales promotional drives, what the market shares of the various companies are, what people like or dislike about service station dealers and oil companies, and so forth. Nobody seems as interested in probing deeply into the basic human needs that the industry might be trying to satisfy as in probing into the basic properties of the raw material that the companies work with in trying to deliver customer satisfactions.

Basic questions about customers and markets seldom get asked. The latter occupy a stepchild status. They are recognized as existing, as having to be taken care of, but not worth very much real thought or dedicated attention. No oil company gets as excited about the customers in its own backyard as about the oil in the Sahara Desert. Nothing illustrates better the neglect of marketing than its treatment in the industry press.

The centennial issue of the American Petroleum Institute Quarterly, published in 1959 to celebrate the discovery of oil in Titusville, Pennsylvania, contained 21 feature articles proclaiming the industry's greatness. Only one of these talked about its achievements in marketing, and that was only a pictorial record of how service station architecture has changed. The issue also contained a special section on "New Horizons," which was devoted to showing the magnificent role oil would play in America's future. Every reference was ebulliently optimistic, never implying once that oil might have some hard competition. Even the reference to atomic energy was a cheerful catalog of how oil would help make atomic energy a success. There was not a single apprehension that the oil industry's affluence might be threatened or a suggestion that one "new horizon" might include new and better ways of serving oil's present customers.

But the most revealing example of the stepchild treatment that marketing gets is still another special series of short articles on "The Revolutionary Potential of Electronics." Under that heading, this list of articles appeared in the table of contents:

"In Production Operations"

Significantly, every one of the industry's major functional areas is listed, except marketing. Why? Either it is believed that electronics holds no revolutionary potential for petroleum marketing (which is palpably wrong), or the editors forgot to discuss marketing (which is more likely and illustrates its stepchild status).

The order in which the four functional areas are listed also betrays the alienation of the oil industry from the consumer. The industry is implicitly defined as beginning with the search for oil and ending with its distribution from the refinery. But the truth is, it seems to me, that the industry begins with the needs of the customer for its products. From that primal position its definition moves steadily back stream to areas of progressively lesser importance until it finally comes to rest at the search for oil.

The Beginning and End.

The view that an industry is a customer-satisfying process, not a goods-producing process, is vital for all businesspeople to understand. An industry begins with the customer and his or her needs, not with a patent, a raw material, or a selling skill. Given the customer's needs, the industry develops backwards, first concerning itself with the physical delivery of customer satisfactions. Then it moves back further to creating the things by which these satisfactions are in part achieved. How these materials are created is a matter of indifference to the customer, hence the particular form of manufacturing, processing, or what have you cannot be considered as a vital aspect of the industry. Finally, the industry moves back still further to finding the raw materials necessary for making its products.

The irony of some industries oriented toward technical research and development is that the scientists who occupy the high executive positions are totally unscientific when it comes to defining their companies' overall needs and purposes. They violate the first two rules of the scientific method: being aware of and defining their companies' problems and then developing testable hypotheses about solving them. They are scientific only about the convenient things, such as laboratory and product experiments.

The customer (and the satisfaction of his or her deepest needs) is not considered to be "the problem"-not because there is any certain belief that no such problem exists but because an organizational lifetime has conditioned management to look in the opposite direction. Marketing is a stepchild.

I do not mean that selling is ignored. Far from it. But selling, again, is not marketing. As already pointed out, selling concerns itself with the tricks and techniques of getting people to exchange their cash for your product. It is not concerned with the values that the exchange is all about. And it does not, as marketing invariably does, view the entire business process as consisting of a tightly integrated effort to discover, create, arouse, and satisfy customer needs. The customer is somebody "out there" who, with proper cunning, can be separated from his or her loose change.

Actually, not even selling gets much attention in some technologically minded firms. Because there is a virtually guaranteed market for the abundant flow of their new products, they do not actually know what a real market is. It is as if they lived in a planned economy, moving their products routinely from factory to retail outlet. Their successful concentration on products tends to convince them of the soundness of what they have been doing, and they fail to see the gathering clouds over the market. * * *

Less than 75 years ago, American railroads enjoyed a fierce loyalty among astute Wall Streeters. European monarchs invested in them heavily. Eternal wealth was thought to be the benediction for anybody who could scrape together a few thousand dollars to put into rail stocks. No other form of transportation could compete with the railroads in speed, flexibility, durability, economy, and growth potentials.

As Jacques Barzun put it, "By the turn of the century it was an institution, an image of man, a tradition, a code of honor, a source of poetry, a nursery of boyhood desires, a sublimest of toys, and the most solemn machine-next to the funeral hearse-that marks the epochs in man's life." ⁶

Even after the advent of automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, the railroad tycoons remained imperturbably self-confident. If you had told them 60 years ago that in 30 years they would be flat on their backs, broke, and pleading for government subsidies, they would have thought you totally demented. Such a future was simply not considered possible. It was not even a discussable subject, or an askable question, or a matter that any sane person would consider worth speculating about. Yet a lot of "insane" notions now have matter-of-fact acceptance-for example, the idea of 100-ton tubes of metal moving smoothly through the air 20,000 feet above the earth, loaded with 100 sane and solid citizens casually drinking martinis-and they have dealt cruel blows to the railroads.

What specifically must other companies do to avoid this fate? What does customer orientation involve? These questions have in part been answered by the preceding examples and analysis. It would take another article to show in detail what is required for specific industries. In any case, it should be obvious that building an effective customer-oriented company involves far more than good intentions or promotional tricks; it involves profound matters of human organization and leadership. For the present, let me merely suggest what appear to be some general requirements.

The Visceral Feel of Greatness.

Obviously, the company has to do what survival demands. It has to adapt to the requirements of the market, and it has to do it sooner rather than later. But mere survival is a so-so aspiration. Anybody can survive in some way or other, even the skid row bum. The trick is to survive gallantly, to feel the surging impulse of commercial mastery: not just to experience the sweet smell of success but to have the visceral feel of entrepreneurial greatness.

No organization can achieve greatness without a vigorous leader who is driven onward by a pulsating will to succeed. A leader has to have a vision of grandeur, a vision that can produce eager followers in vast numbers. In business, the followers are the customers.

In order to produce these customers, the entire corporation must be viewed as a customer-creating and customer-satisfying organism. Management must think of itself not as producing products but as providing customer-creating value satisfactions. It must push this idea (and everything it means and requires) into every nook and cranny of the organization. It has to do this continuously and with the kind of flair that excites and stimulates the people in it. Otherwise, the company will be merely a series of pigeonholed parts, with no consolidating sense of purpose or direction.

In short, the organization must learn to think of itself not as producing goods or services but as buying customers, as doing the things that will make people want to do business with it. And the chief executive has the inescapable responsibility for creating this environment, this viewpoint, this attitude, this aspiration. The chief executive must set the company's style, its direction, and its goals. This means knowing precisely where he or she wants to go and making sure the whole organization is enthusiastically aware of where that is. This is a first requisite of leadership, for unless a leader knows where he is going, any road will take him there.

If any road is okay, the chief executive might as well pack his attaché case and go fishing. If an organization does not know or care where it is going, it does not need to advertise that fact with a ceremonial figurehead. Everybody will notice it soon enough.

1. Jacques Barzun, "Trains and the Mind of Man," Holiday, February 1960.

2. For more details, see M.M. Zimmerman, The Super Market: A Revolution in Distribution (McGraw-Hill, 1955).

3. Ibid., pp. 45-47.

4. John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society (Houghton Mifflin, 1958).

5. Henry Ford, My Life and Work (Doubleday, 1923).

6. Barzun, "Trains and the Mind of Man."

A version of this article appeared in the July-August 2004 issue of Harvard Business Review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every major industry was once a growth industry. But some that are now riding a wave of growth enthusiasm are very much in the shadow of decline. Others that are thought of as seasoned growth industries have actually stopped growing. In every case, the reason growth is threatened, slowed, or stopped is not because the market is saturated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Defining Marketing Myopia

The term ' marketing myopia' was first expressed in a famous article of the same name written by Theodore Levitt for the Harvard Business Review in 1960. In 'Marketing Myopia,' Levitt argued that many companies incorrectly take a shortsighted approach to marketing, viewing it as merely a tool for selling products. Instead, he argued that companies should look at marketing from the consumer's point of view. For example, a company that sells hiking boots should not define its marketing in terms of sales of hiking boots, but market itself as a company concerned with outdoor exploration and adventure.

Conceptual Framework and Examples

The fundamental concept to take away from marketing myopia is that a business will survive and perform better if it focuses on satisfying customer needs rather than selling specific products. Thus, this is as much about strategic planning as it is about marketing.

Every industry once upon a time was once considered a 'growth industry.' For instance, the buggy whip industry - an example torn directly from Levitt's article - once was thriving with many buggy whip manufacturers and purveyors of buggy whips for horse-drawn carriages. But then Henry Ford came along and the buggy whip industry went into decline and eventually became extinct.

Buggy whip companies did not go out of business because of the advent of cars, according to the concept of marketing myopia. Rather, they went out of business because they were too focused on seeing themselves as buggy whip companies selling buggy whips. If they instead envisioned themselves as being in the transportation business, they might have been able to transition to products and services related to the emerging auto industry or other sectors of the transportation industry.

Levitt believed that products should be viewed as a consequence of marketing rather than marketing being a necessary consequence of a product. Again, the focus should be on filling customer needs through goods and services rather than creating goods and services and then attempting to find customers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
definition & summary - video & lesson transcript | study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marketing Myopia: Examples, Definition & Summary - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The term ' marketing myopia' was first expressed in a famous article of the same name written by Theodore Levitt for the Harvard Business Review in 1960. In 'Marketing Myopia,' Levitt argued that many companies incorrectly take a shortsighted approach to marketing, viewing it as merely a tool for selling products.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You've likely encountered a narcissist or two somewhere along your journey. Perhaps your former lover could never put your needs first. Or maybe, you've worked with someone who just can't stop bragging about his accomplishments long enough to do any work.

Whether your narcissistic encounters were professional or personal, there are some telltale signs that you're dealing with a narcissistic person. Here are seven things narcissists do:
1. They make it clear they know everything. "People are so stupid."
Narcissists don't hesitate to educate lawyers about the legal system or enlighten doctors about medicine. After all, they know more about everything than anyone else, and they're not afraid to show it.

They may argue, educate, and inform you about every topic you bring up in conversation. They're known for saying things like, "Well, here's where you got that wrong," or "That's what most people think, but that's not actually true." They don't shy away from disagreements and they take every opportunity they can find to tutor others about their way of thinking.
2. They insist on being the exception to the rule. "Rules are for people who aren't smart enough to make good decisions on their own."
Narcissists think they're special. They don't think the usual rules, laws, or policies apply to them, because they're the exception to every rule. They're often good at manipulating others to bend the rules for them, which reinforces their belief that they shouldn't have to succumb to the same regulations as everyone else.
3. They project an image of superiority. "I do things most people only dream of doing."
Narcissists care greatly about their image. They want to make sure they appear wealthy, popular, and elite. They're usually materialistic and they enjoy name dropping. Associating themselves with the hottest brand and famous friends makes them feel important.
4. They make a great first impression, but quickly wear out their welcome. "Enough about you, let's talk about me some more."
Narcissists' charming personalities tend to win them favor at first. They often come across as confident, exciting, and endearing. But over time, their selfish tendencies cause people to run the other way.
5. They boost their egos by implying others are inferior. "Other people can't keep up with me."
Not only do narcissists brag about how great they are, but they also imply everyone else is less intelligent, less experienced, and less likeable. No matter how much training or education someone has had, narcissists make it clear that they're better.
6. They assume everyone adores them. "On a scale of 1 to 10, I'm off the chart amazing."
Narcissists truly believe that everyone, from former co-workers to past lovers, holds them in high regard. They assume anyone who doesn't like them must be jealous of their greatness.

Although they can be very sensitive to criticism, they outwardly try to dismiss any negative comments about their appearance or performance. They often try to punish anyone who dare express an unfavorable opinion about them.
7. They always put their own feelings ahead of other people's needs. "People just can't handle that I choose to get what I want in life."
A lack of empathy is the most telling characteristic of narcissists. They don't care what other people need or how they feel. Instead, everything they do centers around what they want and need.

They don't care what type of pain they inflict on others. They tend be unsupportive and manipulative, but they can fake empathy when it will help them look better. But, they lack a genuine desire to put anyone else's needs above their own desires.
Dealing with a Narcissist
While you can't always avoid narcissists, you can choose to deal with them effectively. Simply recognizing that you're dealing with a narcissist can help you better understand their behavior. Establish healthy boundaries and keep an emotional distance when necessary.
Amy Morin is a psychotherapist, keynote speaker, and the author of 13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do, a bestselling book that is being translated into more than 20 languages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Things Only Narcissists Do In Business

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You've likely encountered a narcissist or two somewhere along your journey. Perhaps your former lover could never put your needs first. Or maybe, you've worked with someone who just can't stop bragging about his accomplishments long enough to do any work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While political leaders remain tied up in discussions of government shutdowns and debt ceiling increases, William Gale and Alan Auerbach focus on the medium- and long-term budget outlook, where more serious challenges lie. Though othershave positively reported on the fiscal situation after the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act, Gale and Auerbach conclude that the nation is still far from attaining a sustainable fiscal policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PTSD, or Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, is a psychiatric disorder that can occur following the experience or witnessing of a life-threatening events such as military combat, natural disasters, terrorist incidents, serious accidents, or physical or sexual assault in adult or childhood. Most survivors of trauma return to normal given a little time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about different mental health conditions' stats in easy to read info-graphics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PEOPLE CENTRIC PROJECT MANAGEMENT (PCPM)

People centric project management emphasizes that project management should be based on Experience, Dynamics, Human Psychology rather than solely on Processes. Wise project managers focus on learning and understanding how people function in an organization - both as individuals - and as a team. It is important to figure out during project initiation how people in the performing organization behave and adapt.

Human Psychology should also be considered as an integral part of Project Management. Technical knowledge and following standard processes is one aspect but that is only 30-40% of day-to-day activities. We need to better manage the remainder of the 60-70% - which is people centric.

The aspect of projects that gives project managers sleepless nights is people behavior - especially factors emerging from them - such as push-back, resistance to change, acceptance, trust etc. There are several real life scenarios project managers encounter - that emanate from these aspects. Project managers are encouraged to implement people centric management techniques that will eventually will help them implement processes as well as manage behavioral aspects of people successfully.

People centric project management differs from traditional project management in that it does not reject the basic principles of traditional project management but in addition, it emphasises that all traditional project management processes be followed as usual but be tailored according to the need in order to reap rich benefits coming from good people behaviour being exhibited as part of the project implementation.

INSTRUMENTAL ELEMENTS FOR SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF PEOPLE CENTRIC PROJECT MANAGEMENT (PCPM)

1. UNDERSTAND CULTURE - PEOPLE VS PROCESSES

The most important factor coming from humans including sensitive aspects is Culture. The term culture means different things to different people. From a project management perspective, culture simply means "how is stuff done here". Culture is something that comes with people as a baggage along with them. It is imperative that a project manager understand and interpret what the culture of the performing organization is. This becomes increasingly challenging with virtual global teams. When a team member responds swiftly "It is impossible for us to carry out this work" without analyzing the work assigned - it is likely that employees are striving within an organizational culture that is not supportive of their efforts!

Introspect: It is essential that project managers introspect how PCPM is being implemented. The introspection frequency will depend on several factors such as the team size, stakeholder size, location of teams and stakeholders, senior management demands etc. Introspection is the only way of answering the questions "How are we doing today? Will we be able to implement PCPM? What else needs to be done to strengthen the PCPM process? How long will it take for people to be on board? etc."

2. ENGAGE TEAM MEMBERS

Engaging project team members is the foundation to project success. In PCPM, it is extremely important that the groundwork be laid to engage team members and stakeholders and finally sustain in the short and long term. Focus should be setting key performance/productivity indicators for the performing team as a whole. The level of engagement of team and stakeholders should be monitored and strategies be devised to maximize the engagement levels of both at the same time. Performance, Productivity, Efficiency and Efficacy must be maximized or at a minimum balanced.

Across the project lifecycle, engagement levels of individual team members and the team as a whole should be monitored. Emotional and personal expectations of the team members must be addressed to bring about the best in them. Questions such as "How is this individual doing on the current project?", "How does this employee react to his work load?", "Does the employee feel good at the end of every day's work?", "Does the team connect their personal objectives with project objectives and organizational objectives, in turn?", "How is the project team doing as a whole?", "How are we engaged as a group to meet our objectives?", "What do stakeholders/customers think abour the project team?" etc. - must be asked and answered satisfactorily.

At the Senior Management Level or at a PMO level (if a PMO exists), it will be important to update or change the overall project management framework to integrate all the knowledge about human nature and the questions answered above. Tools must be developed or customized to measure the level of engagement of teams or stakeholders accurately. These new tools must be integrated into the new project management framework.

Finally, the new approach of People Centric Project Management (PCPM) should be reflected in the overall PMO's strategic objectives and long term vision/mission.

3. IMPORTANCE OF EMOTIONS & MOTIVATION

Emotions have to do with hormones and neurotransmitters in the human body. Emotions drive employee motivation positively or negatively. Oh boy! Isn't it difficult to psycho-physio-bio-logically scan a person's mind and body to anticipate what the Expressions, Feelings, Body Language, and Actions he or she may exhibit e.g.- they are sometimes Happy, Sad, Angry, Excited, Tender, Scared etc. This has been a long standing challenge for most people managers, especially project managers!

Feelings, Moods and Actions affect the manner in which team members and stakeholders carry out their work on projects and so management of emotional aspects is supreme for successful project management. A good project manager should not just be a technical person but should be a rare breed of individual who should be able to manage both the technical and emotional factors. If both factors are not managed, projects will cost way higher than what they are originally planned for! e.g. a strong skilled, high performing employee with tremendous knowledge (not shared with anyone else on the team) exhibiting negative attitude and emotions may not only choose not to perform but also may become a project manager's nightmare if he decides to not co-operate.

Little attention is devoted to emotional factors in traditional project management - project managers must realize that this is the key reason for project failure! E.g. when we conduct lessons learned for failed projects, we focus only on the project management methodologies followed or those that were not followed - but we hardly attempt to identify the lack of focus on the management of the emotional and motivational aspects of people.

To ensure project success - PCPM might be a critical factor that needs to be looked into and implemented so that project managers are allowed to exhibit strong people skills and vibrant emotional intelligence!

There is advantage to project managers being assigned to a project during initiation and PCPM reinforces just that principle.

In ensuring that project teams will get better and provide maximum output, the following steps are recommended:

✓ Select & Recruit Team members keeping in mind the new PCPM framework, project and organizational objectives.
✓ Develop Team based on PCPM framework, keeping in mind the culture of the team on boad - here we again stress on adjusting processes vs adapting!
✓ Motivate Team keeping in mind Emotional factors. More about the impact of motivation below is discussed. Emotional stability would ensure project success.
✓ Periodically Introspect behavioral responses of the team members - understand that PCPM framework needs to be iteratively fine-tuned and optimized.

Project team members or stakeholders do NOT work in an environment where they feel threatened, insecure or disarmed. Productivity is at its lowest when there is no trust and people don't feel comfortable. If people don't have confidence and passion for the work that they do - it does not bring about the best in them.

How is this addressed? Here is a simple question that will help us understand better

Q: So, we all know from the laws of Physics that Force = [Mass] x [Action].Here, Mass refers to people and Action refers to project success. So what is the force then that needs to be applied to people to achieve project success?

A: Motivation!

Motivational factor in knowledge based industries (IT etc.) is important and is desperately needed in PCPM. Project managers need to look at alternative ways to look at projects as a social system rather than a technical system.

From an organization perspective, projects entirely involve around costs, risks, frameworks, internal/external market scenarios, decision making, harnessing talent, identifying critical resources etc. With virtual global knowledge teams working in different time-zones across different projects at the same time, it is very important to ensure that people stay motivated and magnetized to a specific project. PCPM becomes a guiding methodology in this dynamic environment and proper motivational drivers are a MUST. This helps get people focused on one project and give it the priority it deserves.

There are several motivational theories that can be applied in the PCPM framework but it is important to consider Motivation as one of the key drivers.

4. IDENTFY BEHAVIORAL RISKS USING INTUITIVE MIND-READING

Behavior refers to the range of actions and mannerisms exhibited - in this case - by people. Certain desired behavior is assumed by project managers when they stitch and integrate several of the established project management processes. This assumption is based on factors such as Culture, Attitudes, Emotions, Perceptions, Values, Ethics, Authority, Rapport, Hypnosis, Mindset and Persuasion, among others.

On most occasions some of these assumptions don't hold quite valid. When people don't behave like the way we originally assumed them to, their behavior seems unpredictable to us. And, when people behavior becomes unpredictable - project outcome is inevitably affected - either positively (success) or negatively (failure). Even if project managers don't forget to include people behavior, they may find out that the people in the system don't behave as expected, with unanticipated project outcome.

Think of the human brain emitting encrypted signals. Most project managers intercept these signals but hardly a few actually decrypt and interpret them. This act is called Intuitive Mind-Reading!

The ultimate goal of project management is to ensure project success. As part of PCPM, project managers MUST sharpen their mind reading skills and identify potential Known Behavioral Risks that may emanate from ALL people involved (team members, stakeholders, bosses, senior management etc.) in the project and adapt to this behavior to ensure that things that can go wrong don't go wrong. Successful project managers are gifted with Intuitive Mind-Reading. During project execution, project managers must reach out to all these people involved, observe what tends to go wrong - and ensure it doesn't.

Is Intuitive Mind-Reading the only tool for identifying behavioral risks? Not necessarily but in most cases, Yes! E.g. it is best to begin with analyzing our own behavior and from there extrapolate and extend our understanding to all types of people behavior across the team.

However, in other cases where Unknown Behavioral Risks show up during project execution, it is the skill and brilliance of project managers that helps them better manage the situation and drive towards project success.

5. ...AND LASTLY: COMMUNICATION, COMMUNICATION & COMMUNICATION!

The real problem of projects is NOT the planning or technical aspects but is the day to day contact with people - which is the major nightmare and poses the biggest challenges to project managers.

At any given point of time in the project lifecycle, there will likely be hundreds or thousands of communication channels across project team members and stakeholders. These channels provide the opportunity for people to exchange information among one another. Whether it is Email, IM, Meetings, 1:1(s), Reports etc. it is important to question - what percentage of these channels actually yield positive and fruitful interactions? This will be a key indicator for project success. Project managers need to create a conducive environment for nurturing positive people interactions.

As always, you need the right blend of people in your team to talk to the appropriate stakeholders, gain buy-in and work along project integration. Once you have the PCPM thinking in place, then the next step is to focus on the project team.

In PCPM, it must be the daily duty for project managers to maintain the line of communication very open so that they keep catering to the basic needs to employees.

What needs to get communicated across and top things project managers need to keep in mind while implementing PCPM?

Understand and believe that project managers have the most impact in opening up communication channels.

Communicate what is expected of each team member

Establish a clear sense of what each team member's duty or role is.

Provide recognition - this is actually part of communication!

Empower team members' with the right tools and techniques to do the job

Keep your ears open to suggestions

Have open conversations about every aspect that requires the PCPM framework to be adjusted.

Frequently talk to team members about their progress and provide feedback -

Learn from people on how they think they connect to the mission of the project team and compare that with how you think they connect.

Communicate between the current statefuture state the gap  and how is the team member is doing.

Make Action Plans for the longer term to ensure you are actively managing the emotional and motivational aspects of ALL the people

Gather feedback and inputs on how are people interact with each other on their communication channel.

Finally, it is the project managers duty to ensure that interactions on ALL communication channels yield positive results!

The key truly is communication, communication, communication and communication!

CONCLUSION

If organizations want project managers to deliver projects perfectly, that cannot be done solely by following a rule book, using project management software, firefighting problems, implementing the concepts from PMBOK etc. Project managers MUST also be able to manage the thousands of interactions people have within the project and outside of it (environmental factors). The emotional bonding between individuals must be well understood and recognized to get the best out of the people. This ultimately is crucial for achieving proper level of teamwork, communication and performance that is needed for successful project management.

In addition, because our society or organization is not good at working with the behavioral and emotional drivers, we cannot motivate people to complete the project on time, cost, scope and quality. Aspects of project management dealing with people, behavior, emotions are not much stressed upon. In most documented areas, either it is in a footnote or in an appendix.

To conclude, emphasis must be on the importance of people behavior and having a framework such as PCPM - in place to account for people behavior - as an effective solution guaranteeing higher project success rates!
Don't forget to leave your comments below. About the Authors
Shreenath Sreenivas, B.Sc.(Hons.), M.Sc, PMP has in-depth knowledge and experience in software project planning, integration management, requirement gathering, risk management, scheduling, vendor management, contract management, execution, monitoring, controlling, quality assurance and on-time delivery. He is a Project Management Professional (PMP)® credential holder and has delivered projects successfully across a wide range of domains, such as Pharmaceuticals, Bio-IT (LIMS), Tax and Accounting, Mobile Web Apps; in addition to the field of software product development and consulting. He earned his Bachelor's B.Sc. (Hons) & Master's M.Sc. degrees in Industrial Chemistry from the Indian Institute of Technology (I.I.T.), Kharagpur, India.

Ambadapudi Sridhara Murthy, M.Tech, PMI-SP, PMP has extensive experience in the fields of software project planning, scheduling, risk management, budget management, vendor management, contract management, execution, tracking, monitoring, controlling, quality assurance, and on-time delivery. He is a Project Management Professional (PMP)® credential holder, PMI Scheduling Professional (PMI-SP)® credential holder, and has delivered projects over a wide range of domains, such as Leak Detection Software, Semiconductor software, implementing desktop/mobile websites, and Bio-Information Management Systems, in addition to the field of software services. He earned his bachelor's degree (B.Tech) in chemical engineering from Pune University, India and earned his master's degree (M.Tech) in computer-aided process and equipment design from REC/NIT in Warangal, India.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Ambadapudi Sridhara Murthy & Shreenath Sreenivas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does People Behavior Impact Projects? How? And what do we do about it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People centric project management emphasizes that project management should be based on Experience, Dynamics, Human Psychology rather than solely on Processes. Wise project managers focus on learning and understanding how people function in an organization - both as individuals - and as a team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dashiell, a 29-year-old CPA, first came to see me after his self-described "healthy sexual appetite" went from fun to over-the-edge to addiction. In our initial assessment, Dash told me his sexual behavior had spiraled out of control, resulting in a string of reprimands at work (for downloading porn on company owned equipment) and eventually the loss of his job. Dash was also using "adult friend finder" apps, primarily Ashley Madison and Tinder, to seek out casual sexual encounters and prostitutes. Unsurprisingly, he was in deep denial about his sexual problems - justifying, minimizing, blaming, and deflecting like a seasoned addict. Nevertheless, his treatment motivation was high, even though he was hoping to not give up the escapist and highly compulsive sexual intensity that ruled his life. As part of his assessment and early treatment, I walked him through an extensive sexual, romantic, and relationship history, and from that it was clear that his patterns of problematic sexual behavior began relatively early, in his mid-teens, when he started viewing online porn and engaging in webcam sex. Over time, we discussed his family of origin, and what repeatedly stood out, as it does with many male sex addicts, was the often inappropriate, boundary-less, and covertly sexualized relationship Dash had with his mother.

When I was a kid my mom would pull me out of school some days, not for any reason other than she seemed to want my company. I would just get dragged along while she shopped, and then we'd have lunch somewhere, with me listening to her talking about her life with my dad and how she was feeling about their relationship. Sometimes she would take me to the movies with her - not kid movies but grown-up stuff. My dad was always working or drinking, and she didn't have many women friends, so I was her fill-in. And in a way that wasn't so bad. I liked skipping school and eating out and getting see to movies that other kids didn't, but at the same time I always felt a little bit weird with her. She always seemed to sit a little too close to me, and she commented on my body all the time, especially when I was a teenager. Sometimes she'd walk into the bathroom when I was in the shower to put away towels or some stupid thing that could easily have waited until I was done and dressed. Lots of stuff like that. I had no privacy at all. Even if I was in my room with the door locked she could be right outside, listening and asking me through the closed door what I was doing, was I OK, did I need her for anything. All I really wanted was for her to leave me alone. What makes me crazy even now is that she never actually touched me sexually. Still, by the time I was 15 or 16, just being in the same room with her made my skin crawl.

As is typical with covert incest survivors, Dash entered therapy relatively unaware of the long-term, adult-life effects of his mother's behavior - how her turning to him rather than her husband for emotional intimacy and sexualized closeness left him feeling "icky and wrong" even as an adult. (It is equally typical for covert incest survivors to enter therapy viewing their "special" relationship with a parent as a cherished privilege.) Though Dash initially resisted the notion that he'd been abused by his mother's needfulness and emotional demands, over time, as he became more educated about family dynamics and looked more deeply into his adult problems, he came to reinterpret much of what he had believed about his mother. Eventually he was able to identify the parts of his maternal attachment that were damaging. Ultimately we identified and addressed the covert incest perpetrated by his mother as a key component underlying his sexual addiction.
What Is Covert Incest?
Covert incest, also known as emotional incest (and sometimes as psychic incest), is the surreptitious, indirect, sexualized emotional use/abuse of a child by a parent, step-parent, or any other long-term caregiver. In contrast to overt sexual abuse, which involves hands-on sexual contact, covert abuse involves less direct forms of sexuality - sexuality that is emotionally implied or suggested rather than overtly acted out. In this way, a child is used for emotional fulfillment, forced to support the adult by serving as a trusted confidante and/or an "emotional spouse." Though there may be little to no direct sexual activity, these overly enmeshed relationships have a sexualized undertone, with the parent expressing overly graphic verbal interest in the child's physical development and sexual characteristics and/or betraying the child's boundaries via voyeurism, exhibitionism, sexualized conversations, and inappropriate sharing of intimate stories and/or images.

Covert incest often occurs when the parents have distanced themselves from one another both physically and emotionally, and/or when one or both of the parents are addicted to a substance or behavior. In Dash's case, his father was a high-functioning alcoholic while his mother struggled with life-long poor body image and eating disorders. When such dysfunctional parent couples distance themselves from each other, one of the parents may focus on the child - seeking adult emotional fulfillment by using the child as a surrogate partner - or the parent may tie his/her self-esteem to the success of the child. When this occurs, the child's developmental needs tend to be ignored, and his or her emotional growth (especially in the area of healthy sexual and romantic attachment) can be profoundly stunted. And the perpetrating adult is usually completely unaware of the emotional damage he or she is creating.
The Consequences
Although covertly incestuous relationships do not involve overt sexual abuse, they are sexualized relationships where profound inequity does nonetheless exist, and, as such, victims often and unsurprisingly respond in many of the same ways as survivors of overt incest. Essentially, a child in these circumstances is deprived of healthy attachment bonds, stable emotional growth, and many other basics of childhood development. Instead, the child is taught that his or her worth is based not on who he or she is as a person, but on how much he or she can please, amuse, and/or bond with the caretaker. As a result, covert incest survivors often experience the following symptoms and consequences later in life:

Addiction and compulsivity: In general, addicts don't use to feel better, they use to escape and dissociate from stress, emotional discomfort, and the pain of underlying psychological disorders, including depression, anxiety, attachment deficit issues, and more. All of these issues are symptomatic of both covert and overt incest. It is therefore not surprising that a very high percentage of incest survivors also deal with adult addiction - substance abuse, compulsive gambling, sexual and/or romantic addiction, compulsive spending, eating disorders, etc. Sex addiction is especially common among both covert and overt incest survivors.

Difficulty developing and maintaining adult long-term intimacy: Covert incest leads to a wide variety of intimacy disorders. Many covert incest survivors feel smothered or trapped when they enter into adult romances, even if the person they are seeing is incredibly emotionally healthy. The unhealthy attachment bonds these survivors formed in childhood are just too deep, and they can surface any time an intimate attachment presents later in life. Sometimes covert incest survivors avoid intimate adult relationships altogether; other times they seek these relationships but sabotage or flee them when the anxiety they associate with emotional closeness kicks in. As a result, many survivors of covert incest report feelings of social isolation and social dissatisfaction.

Codependency: Many covert incest survivors develop a pattern, usually during childhood, of placing the needs of others ahead of their own. In covertly incestuous relationships this sort of behavior is rewarded by the perpetrator, which reinforces it. In Dash's case, he got fancy lunches and adult-oriented movies when he complied with his mother's desires.

Shame and feelings of inadequacy: Shame is the inherent, deeply rooted belief that one is defective, not good enough, and unworthy of love. Most often adult shame is rooted in various forms of childhood neglect and abuse, including (but not even remotely limited to) covert and/or overt incest.

Dissociation: Depending on the individual, the age at which he or she experienced the abuse, the nature of the abuse, and how it was (or was not) handled in the family, covert incest survivors can learn to dissociate or space-out when experiencing a stressful emotional moment or a "trigger" to past abuse. Some may develop a full-fledged identity disorder, though most simply struggle to "remain present" at work and in their interpersonal relationships.

Difficulties with self-care (emotional and physical): Like most early-life complex trauma survivors, many covert incest survivors do not feel that they deserve to be happy or to get their needs met in healthy ways. One way this sense of unworthiness can manifest is through inadequate self-care - poor eating habits, lack of exercise, underemployment, seeking out and/or staying in abusive relationships, procrastination, not completing important work or school projects, etc.

Love/hate relationships, especially with the offending parent but also with others: Unhealthy attachment bonds that form in childhood, such as the bonding that occurs with covert incest, tend to repeat later in life, not just with the person who helped form that unhealthy attachment, but with romantic partners, employers, and even friends.

Inappropriate bonding with their own child (intergenerational abuse): Sadly, bonding styles learned in childhood tend to repeat later in life. As such, victims of incest, both covert and overt, tend to perpetrate the same abuse on their own children.

Identifying and Treating Covert Incest
As pervasive and damaging as covert incest is, it frequently goes unrecognized in treatment settings. As my colleague Debra Kaplan says, "The obvious signs are obscured from plain view. It is like the air in the room - it's here, but you can't see it." This confusion affects survivors and therapists alike. In general, the thinking seems to be that if there's no actual physical sexual contact, then no harm has been done. It is only when we dig beneath the surface that we see the connections between covertly incestuous behaviors and adult intimacy and addiction issues.

When covert incest is identified as an underlying issue with a particular client, as it was with Dash in the opening example, effective treatment typically addresses the following issues:

Fully examining the client's family of origin, attachment styles, and interpersonal dynamics

Identifying and "naming" the nature and pervasiveness of the covert incest that was perpetrated upon the client

Acknowledging and processing feelings of shame, anger, abandonment, and the like

Helping the client set healthy boundaries with the offending parent (and therefore others). If the perpetrating parent is deceased, this work can be done experientially through role-play, gestalt, art therapy, and other modalities.

Developing an understanding of how the damage caused by covert incest is affecting the client in the present, processing the pain of that covert incest, and helping the client move forward toward healthier, more fulfilling adult relationships

This is difficult and sometimes painful work. If, as a clinician, you do not feel comfortable or qualified to handle it (even if it's only because you are going though a temporary stressor yourself), you should absolutely refer your client to one or more clinicians experienced in early complex trauma. In all cases you must recognize that recovery from covert incest does not happen alone or only in the confines of an individual therapeutic relationship. The more supportive and empathetic people there are in a covert incest survivor's life, the better. This means that incest-focused group therapy, 12-step groups like Survivors of Incest Anonymous, and other early-life trauma support groups can be essential. Much of the time, simply knowing that they are not the only person who was abused and damaged in this way will go a long way toward reducing the shame that incest survivors experience. Books discussing covert incest, most notably Silently Seduced by Kenneth Adams and The Emotional Incest Syndrome by Patricia Love, are useful not only for covert incest survivors, but for the clinicians who may be treating them. I highly recommend both works. It can also be useful to incorporate body-work and mindfulness techniques into both the exploration/abreaction and the recovery/containment elements of trauma treatment. In such cases, somatic experiencing, EMDR, shame resilience (a la Brené Brown's Daring Way ™ curriculum), meditation, visualization, art therapy, DBT, and other established protocol-based forms of experiential work can be extremely useful - so long as the provider is well-trained in the overall treatment of early complex trauma

.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dashiell, a 29-year-old CPA, first came to see me after his self-described "healthy sexual appetite" went from fun to over-the-edge to addiction. In our initial assessment, Dash told me his sexual behavior had spiraled out of control, resulting in a string of reprimands at work (for downloading porn on company owned equipment) and eventually the loss of his job.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Unlike wounds resulting from physical or sexual abuse, where the invasive energy is blatant, the wounding energy of emotional incest is stealthy and very difficult to track. The intrusive psychic energy of the perpetrator is packaged in care and attention. It can be quite challenging to break into this care package and reveal the expectations and needs of affiliation, control, love and understanding on behalf of the perpetrator. Being robbed of one's childhood hardly goes noticed as the child feels so good about being chosen in a special way by an adult. The child is invited to act as if they are capable of being in an adult relationship.

Emotional incest often takes place with either a single parent or a parent whose spouse is not emotionally available. It can also happen with any trusted authority figure, e.g., clergy, coach, teacher, club leader or relative. There are a number of ways that emotional incest impacts development.

*An attachment to feeling special. The child typically feels special because of the attention received and the unusual level of involvement offered by the adult. However, the price for feeling special is high:

1) If emotional incest occurs with a parent, then the child often is the target of the other parent's resentment for having taken his or her place.

2) Similar resentment and jealousy can be experienced by siblings or friends who have some awareness of what's happening.

3) The victim can live with fear of being rejected by those impacted by the incestuous relationship.

4) The victim can exercise an inordinate amount of time and energy striving to be special, which leads to an attachment to perfectionism.

* Feelings of guilt and inadequacy. Children often feel guilty and inadequate as they are unable to meet the emotional needs of an adult. The child's relational limitations may result in the parent expressing dissatisfaction. "Children who grow up with an invasive parent can have an unnaturally low estimation of their abilities, especially if the parent was critical or abusive." ( The Emotional Incest Syndrome by Patricia Love) These feelings easily flow into adulthood, with a gnawing sense of not getting life right.

* Perfectionism. Perfectionism is a compensation for not feeling good enough, which is a set up for not being able to settle into a comfortable feeling being okay.

* Confusion about limits. Rather than be honest about not being able to rightfully participate in an adult relationship, children will typically pretend they can handle it rather than risk losing the attention of the adult. As adults, victims are not clear about what they can do and what they cannot do. Emotionally incested children also run the risk of continuing to pretend they possess certain abilities, which they actually don't.

* Sacrificial Lamb. One outcome of not knowing how to identify and accept limits is feeling both intolerant and shameful about feeling helpless. In lieu of feeling powerless in their relationships, victims run the risk of taking action that places them in legal, physical or emotional jeopardy.

* Weak Boundaries. The appropriate boundaries in an adult-child relationship are about the adult providing and the child receiving. The role of strong boundaries is to support the child's capacity for self-care. An emotionally incestuous relationship has the child holding too much responsibility for the adult. Boundary confusion easily follows the child into adulthood with uncertainty about who is a peer, who is not and what kind of behavior distinguishes the two different relationships.

* Attracted to Enmeshment. Because of the weak boundaries, adults who were victims of emotional incest tend to generate enmeshed relationships rather than emotionally intimate ones. In the latter relationships, each person's autonomy is valued. Where as in an enmeshed relationship, one person's autonomy is compromised, favoring the needs and values of the other. A man who is addressing early enmeshment with his mother reports: "I would have done anything for my Mom when I saw how much she suffered after my Dad left. I was seven at the time and ever since then, I feel a deep sense of guilt if I attempt to prioritize my needs when I'm in a relationship with a woman. It is a struggle I'm determined to overcome."

* Confusion About Power. Typically, the adult and child are not peers in an Emotionally Incestuous relationship with the adult possessing more knowledge and experience. This leads children to be confused about mutuality, holding the belief that someone in a relationship should be holding power and dominate. Typically, the survivor of emotional incest runs the likelihood of either dominating or being dominated.
Healing the Quiet Wound
Because so much was given and so much was taken, it takes patience and receiving viable support in order to navigate our way around the terrain of this wound. Let's look at some ways to focus the healing:

* Wound Talk. The starting place is to begin talking about what happened, especially the implications of being asked to leave childhood prematurely. During what years was I in an emotionally incestuous relationship? Who was the adult in this relationship? How did it feel to be in such a relationship? What was given to me? What was taken from me? How do I feel now about my early experience? How do I feel toward the perpetrator?

* No Bad People. Those who were victims of emotional incest typically perpetrate emotional incest. Perpetrators act out of ignorance of what was done to them and what they are passing on to others. Perpetrators have no intent to harm children. If you were a victim presently passing on the wounding, you are not a bad person. However, you are responsible to acquire your own healing and interrupt any emotional violation you may presently be enacting.

* Learning to let go of an attachment to being special. When we're attached to being special it leaves us feverishly striving to achieve it or condemned to not feeling good enough. A key is to replace feeling special by honoring our uniqueness. Our uniqueness is expressed by how we love, learn, and grieve, as well as the nature of our strengths and how we refine them.

* Getting conscious about power. Because the perpetrator abused power, healing power calls for raising consciousness about how we exercise power. Am I employing power in a way that allows me to meet my own needs as well as supporting the needs of others? Am I able to champion the uniqueness of others without recruiting them to be like me? Am I easily seduced into sacrificing myself in order to support the fulfillment of others?

* Healing Trust. Perpetrators gained certain leverage over children because children trusted them. This calls for the healing of the early violation of trust. The first step is to acknowledge that trust must be earned and not given indiscriminately. Earned trust happens and is sustained by a vigilance regarding what happens to us as we relate with someone. Some questions that are helpful include: Am I the object of sarcasm or ridicule? Am I remembered? Do I feel seen and understood? Is my relationship to this person a place to take refuge in the face of life's challenges? Healing self-trust is even more essential. We can ask: Do I allow myself to feel and respond to instinctual cues that I am in potential or actual danger? (I recommend Somatic Experience as a therapeutic model for reconnecting to instinctual cues.) Do I treat myself kindly, knowing and responding appropriately when I am tired, hungry, lost or feeling vulnerable?

* Employing Effective Boundaries. Good boundaries support our safety, what we desire and hold important. Effective boundaries happen as we say "Yes" and "No" authentically and act in accordance with each declaration. It is advantageous to be able to distinguish mutual relationships from non-mutual ones. Mutual ones can be characterized as peer ship, such as friends and lovers. Non-mutual relationships usually involve authority figures who are offering a service or some level of support, e.g., parents, adult relatives, teachers, clergy, physicians, psychotherapists, coaches, etc. The boundaries in non-mutual relationships are meant to define the relationship mostly about the service or support offered.

We have been exploring an extremely mercurial kind of wounding, so much is given and so much is taken. How ironic to speak of a wound as "feeling so good." It may be that children often can't wait to become adults, making the perpetrator's invitation to leave childhood so attractive, leaving the injury veiled. However, there is a heavy price to pay for children to psychologically be somewhere they don't belong. I strongly encourage survivors of emotional incest not to simply see their wounding as unfortunate; but rather, as it is with all wounding, an opportunity to open to deeper regions of the soul. (For further reading see Temptation In The House Of The Lord, by Paul Dunion)
Need help? In the U.S., call 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) for the National Domestic Violence Hotline or 1-800-656-HOPE for the National Sexual Assault Hotline.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unlike wounds resulting from physical or sexual abuse, where the invasive energy is blatant, the wounding energy of emotional incest is stealthy and very difficult to track. The intrusive psychic energy of the perpetrator is packaged in care and attention.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the years, my psychotherapeutic work has been heavily influenced by several groundbreaking clinicians, one of whom is Dr. Kenneth Adams. Specifically, his books Silently Seduced: When Parents Make Their Children Partners and When He's Married to Mom: How to Help Mother-Enmeshed Men Open Their Hearts to True Love and Commitment have furthered my understanding of intimacy disorders, in particular the ways in which early-life covert incest often creates a later-life inability to intimately attach in healthy ways - a phenomenon I've witnessed in a shockingly large percentage of my impulsively and/or compulsively sexual clients. I recently had an opportunity to speak with Dr. Adams about his pioneering work, and I am happy to share excerpts of our conversation with you here.
In the simplest terms, what is covert incest?
Covert incest describes a relationship between a parent and child in which the child feels more like a romantic partner. Typically the parent is motivated by the loneliness and emptiness of a troubled marriage, so she (or he) turns the child into a surrogate partner. There is not necessarily any kind of overt sexual touching, but the relationship feels too close for comfort to the child. The boundaries are such that there is an incestuous feeling. The child feels used and trapped, the same as with overt incest.
In Silently Seduced, you use the word "icky" to describe how covert incest feels. When I first read that, may years ago, I said, "Oh my God, he totally gets this."
Yes, it just feels like it's too close. The child thinks, "I shouldn't be sitting here watching soap operas with you, mom, while you tell me about your sexual frustration with dad," and so forth. Or there is sexualized commenting on the child's physical development. Or mom takes her son to the movies and tells him she has the handsomest date there. However it unfolds, it feels icky.

Later on, covert incest victims tend to continue functioning in the role of a surrogate partner where they're overly enmeshed with the parent, overinvolved as a caretaker, even though they may have long forgotten the icky part that was present early on - usually during adolescence. As adults, instead of feeling icky they might just feel frustrated, angry, obligated, and way too involved. This type of enmeshment is very common in terms of the adult-life characteristics. Basically, enmeshment describes the nature of the ongoing relationship; covert incest defines the earlier sexual inappropriateness.
Beyond enmeshment, what other later-life manifestations do you see? For instance, in the foreword to Silently Seduced Pat Carnes writes, "Loving a person but not being able to be sexual with that partner is a great irony when sex is easy with anonymous or unavailable partners."
Basically, what I see with men, and women too, as a result of covert incest is that they never quite feel free to be who they are. Because a parent has caused them to feel obligated, burdened, and overly responsible - with a sexual element underneath that - their relationships elsewhere are affected. They meet someone and they think, "I don't want to be with you if you burden me." Sometimes they become sexually shut down with their long-term partner because the relationship feels so burdensome. They can't enjoy it or be spontaneous with it anymore. It starts to feel icky to them, just like their unhealthy, overly enmeshed relationship with mom or dad. So they're drawn to sex where there's no commitment and there's no obligation. Sometimes they don't even want to know the other person's name. The more anonymous it is, the less they know about the other person, the better. For example, guys who experienced covert incest with mom might struggle to maintain an erection with their wife or a serious girlfriend, but with a stranger they don't have that problem because they don't feel burdened and the sex doesn't feel icky.

I'll never forget one client I worked with. He talked about all the women in his life and he said that there were at least a few ships that he let pass by because he felt like he had to take care of his mother instead, and he started crying when he was talking about that. He desperately wanted to connect with those women in an intimate way but he couldn't. Here he was, a 40 or 50-year-old man, handsome and successful, but he couldn't commit to a romantic relationship no matter what. He just wasn't able to take advantage of situations that were in his best interest.
Do things improve when the covert incest victim moves far away or the parent passes away?
No, because you still have the emotional and psychological conflict, even though there may be some immediate relief of not having to be responsive to the parent so frequently. Separation doesn't remove you from the bondage of your template. You still enter a relationship and almost immediately feel burdened and overly responsible.

I also want to point out that the earlier the covert incest, the earlier the enmeshment, the earlier the role of surrogate partner, the more deeply rooted this template becomes. The covert incest victim's developmental and attachment schema is ever more heavily layered with guilt, caretaking, obligation, and so forth. So a guy can move across the country and get involved with someone romantically and he still wants to leave that relationship very quickly because it's just too much for him. He gets involved, he feels responsible and burdened, and he wants out.

I see a lot of covert incest survivors who just don't regulate themselves very well when it comes to romance. They move in too quickly, or they're ambivalent right from the start, or they go quickly and then become ambivalent, or whatever. It's not uncommon for covert incest survivors to become serial monogamists, one relationship after another, because in the early stages of romance, when the neurochemicals are surging and making it seem like everything is great, they're able to bypass their sensation of feeling burdened. They're able to connect and be sexual with another person. But when the neurochemical rush of early romance dies down, the old feelings return and they're out of there. They're toast.
What first sparked your interest in covert incest? When and why did you first start looking at it?
Back in the 1980s I became involved personally with the Adult Children of Alcoholics movement, and then, professionally, I began to treat adult children of alcoholics. What I found was that a lot of these people had played the role of surrogate husband or wife to a distraught parent as a result of the other parent's alcoholism. I noticed that story unfolding repeatedly, and I began to write about it. I also noticed a strong connection between this early-life enmeshment and adult-life sexual acting out. I published the first article on this in 1987. And of course I started looking into this more deeply, creating surveys and doing some research to find the patterns and connections.
What was it like to be the first person to identify and write/talk about this issue? Did you initially experience a lot of resistance to your work? If so, has that changed over time?
Yeah, I got some flack, especially from colleagues who were treating sex abuse and didn't like that I was calling this covert incest. I'd picked that term because the sexual part is hidden behind the good boy or good girl role. But I had colleagues in the sexual abuse field who didn't like me using it. They argued that all sexual abuse is covert. I got pushback from laypeople, too. They just found the whole topic really difficult. Some of them even threw my book across the room when they started reading it.

I'll never forget the first time I did a public presentation. It was in New York, on Long Island, and I was in front of an audience of 75 or 100 clinicians and I started out by giving the definition that I gave to you earlier. About ten minutes into the talk this woman raised her hand and I called on her. She stood up and said, very firmly, "This is preposterous." She was very, very offended that I was calling out parents on this issue. The next time I gave the talk, a different woman stood up at the end and said, "Thank you very much. I'm going to go home right now and take my son to a therapist." So I had a real mix of responses early on. Since that time I've learned to talk about it in a more authoritative way. These days you can't get past me on this issue. I don't flinch. But in the beginning I found it difficult.
When you're treating a client who suffered covert incest, do you sometimes have to break through the "I wasn't abused" barrier because, say, mom didn't touch his penis or dad didn't fondle her breasts?
Yes, sometimes. In those cases I try to not use the word abuse, because clients will often defend against that. Instead, we'll talk about enmeshment and feeling obligated to meet the needs of a parent when those needs should really be met by a spouse. I talk more about the role, and I stay away from talk about abuse. I get less resistance that way. So we just don't talk about it as sexual abuse, even though it essentially is. And let's not forget that even with overt sexual abuse survivors there can be resistance. Let's say a boy was molested by a teenage babysitter. A lot of the time he'll say it wasn't abuse because he wanted it and he enjoyed it.
Just to be clear, though, with covert incest there is a sexualized element.
Yes, with classic covert incest a sexual element is present. Usually the person will report something like, "I went to the movies with my mom a lot, stuff my father should have taken her to, and I felt icky. I didn't want to be there even though I liked the movies. She confided in me and I had to listen to her problems. She kept talking about how sexy I looked." You know, things like that. In those cases there is a sexualized, romanticized aspect to the role of surrogate partner. But it is possible to be enmeshed without that. That's an important distinction to make.
Can you also differentiate a bit more about the difference between overt and covert incest?
Any time there is physical sexual contact, and that includes things like inappropriate kissing or touching, we're talking about overt incest. Basically, you've moved past playing a role and into being an object. It can be both, of course. When that happens, usually the overt incest lasts a much shorter time than the longer-term surrogate partner role. I should also state that in cases of overt and covert combined, it isn't uncommon to see the victims involved as adults with incestuous fantasies - mother and son or father and daughter stuff online, or power differential relationships where a boundary is crossed. Or their lovers tend to be much older or younger, so much so that the age difference raises some people's eyebrows. So the incestuous dynamic is played out in some way.

Frankly, I try not to draw too fine a distinction here because there is definitely a blurry line between things like sitting too close and making a child uncomfortable vs. kissing that child on the lips too long. Either way it feels icky. And the result might be that even though nobody touched my penis or breasts or vagina, when my lover tries to kiss me I withdraw. That withdrawal is your evidence that something happened that was inappropriate and not welcome.
People should also know that healing is possible, that covert incest isn't a life sentence.
Healing is absolutely possible. People have to set healthy boundaries with the parent (if they're still alive), and they have to work on reclaiming their sense of self, moving away from always signing up for the role of caretaker in their relationships. And that's not easy. Learning to not become so enmeshed with your lover that you can't function and you want to run away from the relationship is a difficult process. It's a long-term management issue where you always have to keep track of it, like an addiction. But it doesn't have to rule your life anymore.

If people are interested, I do enmeshment intensives a few times a year for both men and women. We just completed one in September. The next ones are in May of next year. I have people fly in from all over the world for these, and they leave with an emancipated sense of self, if I have anything to say about it, in ways that they never imagined. It's really amazing to see their transformations.

Robert Weiss LCSW, CSAT-S is Senior Vice President of National Clinical Development for Elements Behavioral Health. In this capacity, he has established and overseen addiction and mental health treatment programs for more than a dozen high-end treatment facilities including Promises Treatment Centers in Malibu and Los Angeles, The Ranch in rural Tennessee, and The Right Step in Texas. An internationally acknowledged clinician and author, he has served as a subject expert on the intersection of human intimacy and digital technology for multiple media outlets including The Oprah Winfrey Network, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Daily Beast, and CNN, among many others. For more information please visit website at robertweissmsw.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding Covert Incest: An Interview with Kenneth Adams

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the years, my psychotherapeutic work has been heavily influenced by several groundbreaking clinicians, one of whom is Dr. Kenneth Adams. I recently had an opportunity to speak with Dr. Adams about his pioneering work, and I am happy to share excerpts of our conversation with you here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Girls are weak-minded; boys are strong-willed."

"Tamilians aren't united at all. Look at the Malayalis! They always stick together, wherever they are."

"Marwari boys need not study at all. They have their fathers' businesses to take up."

Don't we come across such statements that stereotype people quite often? So, what is the rationale behind this practice? None. It is just a way of subjective labelling or branding of an individual or a group, without complete knowledge about them. It doesn't necessarily reflect the truth about the individual or group in question.

Stereotyping can take several forms. It can be targeted at individuals or a group or section of people. Comments based on common stereotypes are prevalent everywhere - in schools, colleges, offices and even homes.

Stereotyping creates a negative impact on children's young minds. Chennai-based psychological counsellor Vasuki Mathivanan says, "When children experience stereotyping based on gender, learning skills, caste and other characteristics, it gets strongly registered in their young minds. This plays a major role in shaping their individuality as they grow up."

Some negative effects of stereotyping are as follows:

1. It makes children narrow-minded

We generally relate certain characteristics to a group of people. When we come across an individual belonging to that group, we assume that he or she too would possess the group's trait. But, the truth is that characteristics of individuals depend largely on their own personality traits.

Seventeen-year-old G R Vasavi from Hyderabad narrates one of her experiences here. "Once, I visited my friend Farhana's home for group study. I was quite surprised to see her not wearing a burqah. She was wearing a T-shirt and a pair of shorts! Posters of Rihanna and Harry Potter adorned the walls of her room. I had never seen her wear anything other than a burqah to school. I never knew how her hair looked. I was surprised to find that she had cropped hair. All my assumptions about her as a very conservative, religiously-influenced girl were shattered at that moment. I was even more surprised to know that both her parents were doctors. That day, I realised how foolish it is to brand people based on very little or no information we have," she says.

2. It creates cultural barriers

The tendency to stereotype people based on their caste, religion, colour, region, nationality and sex is common all around the world. This kind of stereotyping creates a huge divide between people. We've often come across jokes on Sardarjis and Mallus. These are classic examples of stereotyping one particular community, and don't augur well for the society at large. For example, In India, there is a tendency for some people from North India considering all South Indians as Madarasis and that they eat only idlis, and South Indians viewing all North Indians as Marwari businessmen. When children are exposed to these forms of stereotypes, they grow up without an actual understanding of people belonging to cultures other than their own.

3. It demotivates children

Karthik Lakshmanan, a Chennai-based psychiatric counsellor, says, "There is a general assumption among city students that their counterparts from villages don't fare well in colleges. Even though there is no foundation for this notion, this kind of branding can have a huge negative impact on such students and can affect their overall performance. I've advised many such students from rural backgrounds to not let their confidence down on hearing such comments."

Sukami Ramesh from Apollo Hospitals, Bengaluru, says, "I know of a college student who was labelled as a 'rustic villager' by his classmates. Just to avoid this tag, he started demanding more money from his parents so that he could buy fashionable and expensive clothes. He was not strong enough to brush aside the comments. Instead, he resorted to temporary ways to boost his self-esteem, and this affected him and his family significantly."

4. It deters children from being their own selves

To help minimise the effect of stereotyping on children, parents should consciously get out of the habit of stereotyping. They should also motivate their children to not let images created by society influence their personalities. Vaishnavi, a mother of two says, "When my children's rooms were being painted, my daughter chose pink while my son chose blue, even though their favourite colours were actually the reverse. They did it just because of the influence of the age-old belief that pink is for girls and blue is for boys. When we came to know about this, we advised them to choose what they liked rather than what they thought was the popular belief. We also train our son in taking up kitchen activities, while my daughter is encouraged to play football, which is her passion."

So, if parents have the will, they can guide their children in ways so that they grow up without being affected by the stereotypes prevalent in society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Stereotyping Affects Children - Parentcircle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Girls are weak-minded; boys are strong-willed." "Tamilians aren't united at all. Look at the Malayalis! They always stick together, wherever they are." "Marwari boys need not study at all. They have their fathers' businesses to take up." Don't we come across such statements that stereotype people quite often?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A narcissistic parent is one who is motivated to raise children who will fit into a role prescribed for them by the parent. Think of the parent as an architect, drawing plans for what the house-in this case, the child-should look like. The narcissistic parent has set ideas from the start about how his or her child will dress and act, and what they will achieve. Narcissistic parents are extremely image conscious and have a strict need for their offspring to fit the image they have prescribed.

The narcissistic parent is motivated by the wish for their child to achieve a fixed type of success conceptualized by the parent alone. Narcissistic parents often did not achieve all their personal or career dreams, and so they look to their children to overcompensate for their own shortcomings and perform, perform, perform. The children of narcissists are cast into the role of high-functioning puppet. If narcissistic parents could have their way, they would orchestrate most moves their children make in life-who would be in their social circle; what sports they'd play; where they'd go to school; who they'd date and marry; and what they'd do for a living. Narcissistic parents are control freaks incarnate, and their children must constantly refer to the script their parents have written for them. (For more about the psychological effect of narcissistic parenting on children, see my article, "Narcissistic Parents' Psychological Effect on Their Children.")

Take a look at the signs described below and ask yourself if you are guilty of any of these traits or behaviors with your own child, or whether you know someone who uses these unhealthy tactics with their children.
1. The narcissistic parent decides how the child dresses or wears his hair.
For narcissists, image is everything. While children are babies and toddlers, of course, the parent-narcissistic or otherwise-chooses their clothing. But as children reach school age, most will have their own ideas about what they like to wear. Narcissistic parents, however, aren't interested in hearing what shirts or shorts their children like, and they certainly don't ask their opinion. Clothing is selected to fit the image the parent desires. Such parents are deeply invested in a child's clothing or hair because they are focused exclusively on the message their child's style sends to the world. As a therapist, it's my belief that parents should let children dress and wear their hair in the style of their choice. It's understandable to have rules about not letting a child use hair dye or other products until a certain age, but otherwise, let your kid decide whether to wear his or her hair short or long, and so forth.
2. The narcissistic parent treats report cards like statements of a child's personal worth.
I've worked with many clients who sprang from narcissistic parents. They come for help because they've already spent years trying to undo some of the toxic mental programming they received as kids. One male client in his 30s shared how his mother used to calculate his grade point average from the time he was in second grade. You'd think, based on this example, that the narcissistic parent truly cares about her son getting good grades-and you'd be right. However, she didn't care enough to spend any time with him doing homework or reading, which would certainly have resulted in better grades. This narcissistic parent's logic and expectation: I want you to perform at a very high level, but I am not sacrificing any of my time or energy to help you do that. The child of the narcissist always ends up feeling the same thing: I'm on my own.
3. The narcissistic parent wants to select their child's friends.
Narcissists make many decisions based on surface images. A narcissistic parent would rather their child be friends with the daughter of a CEO than the daughter of a mechanic, even if the CEO's child isn't very nice and the mechanic's child is extremely kind. Narcissistic parents are often social climbers, telling themselves that the success of those around them reflects highly on themselves. The narcissistic parent thinks-or says out loud-"Why couldn't you be friends with [a successful, socially high-ranking child]?" I would maintain that emotional success-being happy and having a sense of purpose-is more important than professional success.
4. The narcissistic parent wants compliance from their children, above all else.
These parents need obedience and compliance because the parents have set up-at least in their own minds-a step-by-step how-to program on creating the kid they want. If the child resists the parent's authority or decisions, this runs major interference for the parent's plans. The parent thinks, You're not doing what I want, and my needs are more important than yours. Healthy parents don't need so much compliance from children because they haven't already finalized the profile of what they're looking for their child to become. They see their child as separate, and allow separateness and individuation in their children.
5. The narcissistic parent really, really cares about the name of the college their child attends.
Bliss for the narcissistic parent is simple: "My child just got accepted to Harvard." Having a child get into Harvard, he or she believes, reflects fairly equally on the parent. But in the same way that I don't believe it reflects badly on a parent if their child goes to a local community college, I don't think it reflects so much on a parent if their child goes to Harvard. For healthy parents, their children are their offspring, but they're not carbon copies. Healthy parents do not need their children to be anything other than what they are naturally. They would say, "I'm not sure what kind of school they'll go to, but I'll be here to support them as they figure it out."
6. The narcissistic parent has an unofficial list of acceptable professions for their child to choose.
The goal shouldn't be for parents to push their children to become, say, doctors, lawyers, or CEOs. Are we even sure that the people who have those professions are happier? The goal should really be to help a child identify his or her interests and skills, and to provide the kind of independence they'll need to cultivate a future that's a good match for who they really are. I can think of a number of clients who completed graduate degrees but never used them. Those degrees are the ghosts of parents who pushed their kids into something that wasn't ultimately the right fit. Parents should accept that their children belong in the professions that they want to pursue, and which hopefully capitalize on their unique strengths.
Check out my book, Overcome Relationship Repetition Syndrome and Find the Love You Deserve, or follow me on Twitter for mental health updates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A narcissistic parent is one who is motivated to raise children who will fit into a role prescribed for them by the parent. Think of the parent as an architect, drawing plans for what the house-in this case, the child-should look like.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Parental Influence on the Emotional Development of Children

by Bethel Moges and Kristi Weber

When most people think of parenting, they picture changing diapers, messy feeding times, and chasing a screaming child through a crowded grocery store. But parenting goes far beyond the requirements for meeting the basic survival needs of the child, and parents have a significant influence on how children turn out, including their personality, emotional development, and behavioral habits, as well as a host of other factors. It is important for the overall development of children that parents be present enough to support them, and this support fosters confidence and growth in many areas. Here we will explore the ways parents can impact the emotional development of their children.

Sometimes, just being physically present is not enough. Parents that may be nearby but that are not emotionally invested or responsive tend to raise children that are more distressed and less engaged with their play or activities. A study investigating the connection between parent's investment and children's competence suggests that the emotional involvement of parents really does matter and affects the outcome of their child's emotional competence and regulation (Volling, 458). Parents should keep this in mind when considering the quality of the time they spend with their children, because if they do not invest enough of their time and commitment into pouring emotionally into their child, the child will struggle to learn how to regulate his emotions and interact with others appropriately.

In studying the outcomes of Ainsworth's Strange Situation experiments, L. Alan Sroufe found that the style of early attachment relationships predicts later emotional development of children. Sroufe asserts that, "Such variations [of relationship quality] are not reflections of genetically based traits of the infant but of the history of interaction with the parent" (188). This suggests that attachment styles are not inborn but are driven by how parents interact with their infant from birth. Longitudinal attachment studies show that children with anxious attachment were likely to be emotionally disturbed and have low self-esteem (Sroufe 190). If the form of attachment has such long-lasting impacts on children, it is clear that parents must treat their children in ways that foster secure attachment in order for the children to grow into emotionally stable adolescents and adults.

An important factor in the emotional development of children is how warm caregivers are, and studies have been done to find the effects of depressed mothers on the emotional development of children. Depressed mothers have maladaptive thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors, and these, along with being in a similarly stressful environment as the mother, put a child at risk of developing his own emotional problems (Sroufe 204). The fact that depressed mothers are likely to be indifferent towards their children, put them in less social situations, and generally provide less stimulation for their children, puts the children at a disadvantage for achieving normal emotional development.

A key aspect of emotional development in children is learning how to regulate emotions. Children see how their parents display emotions and interact with other people, and they imitate what they see their parents do to regulate emotions (Sheffield Morris et. al). A child's temperament also plays a role in their emotion regulation, guided by the parenting style they receive (Belsky et al). For example, children more prone to negative emotions or episodes of anger are deeply affected by hostile and neglectful parenting, often leading to even more behavioral problems. Difficult temperaments can become a bidirectional problem that evokes even more negative emotions from the parent if not monitored. Parents should be aware that not only do their own emotions and parenting style affect the emotional outcomes of their children, but if they are not aware of how their children's tempers affect them, they could fall into a spiral of ineffective and indifferent parenting which further contributes to negative behaviors from the children.

Furthermore, how parents address the emotions of their children and respond to them affects how expressive the children feel they can be. Reacting with criticism or dismissing the sadness or anger of a child communicates that their emotions are not valid or appropriate, which can cause children to be even more prone to those negative emotions and less able to cope with stress (Siegler et. al). Instead, guiding children's emotions and helping them find ways to express themselves in a healthy manner helps them continue regulating their responses to challenges and even aids their academic and social competence. This sort of emotion coaching greatly helps in reducing future problem behavior in children.

In addition to being able to express their own emotions, it is important in social situations for children to be able to identify and deal with the emotions of those around them. Parents model for their children how to comfort someone who is crying or smile at someone who is smiling, but other parental behaviors also influence how their children learn to understand the emotions of others. It has been found that the interaction between parents affects a child's emotional and social development, and marital conflict contributes to problems in these developmental areas (Sheffield Morris et. al). The biggest contributing factor in marital relations affecting children's emotional development is whether the child hears the parents fighting. This is referred to as "background anger" in the child's environment and if the child is exposed to it, even though it is not directed at the child, problems with emotional security and regulation are likely to result from it (Sheffield Morris et. al). Coming from a family with divorced parents, I (Kristi) can relate to this issue of background anger being a factor, because although my parents split when I was at a vulnerable age, they made sure not to fight in front of my sister and I, and I think that allowed us to have a healthier reaction to the divorce and to be emotionally well-adjusted in social interactions.

Parenting decisions affect how children turn out physically, socially, and emotionally, but that is not to say parents should be obsessed with following certain steps to have a perfectly well-adjusted child. We accept that there is no perfect formula for parents to model behavior or speak to children in certain ways to make them have a perfect emotional development experience, and that places a limit on our exploration of this subject. Parents can help their children develop into emotionally stable people by giving them a supportive environment, positive feedback, role models of healthy behavior and interactions, and someone to talk to about their emotional reactions to their experiences.

References

Sheffield Morris, A., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotional regulation. Social Development, 16(2), pp 361-388.

Siegler, R., DeLoache, J., & Eisenberg, N. (2011). How children develop. (3rd ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Sroufe, L. A. (2001). From infant attachment to promotion of adolescent autonomy: Prospective, longitudinal data on the role of parents in development. In J. G. Borkowski, S. L. Ramey & M. Bristol-Power (Eds.), Parenting and the Child's World: Influences on Academic, Intellectual, and Social-emotional Development. Psychology Press.

Volling, B., McElwain, N., Notaro, P., & Herrera, C. (2002). Parents' emotional availability and infant emotional competence: Predictors of parent-infant attachment and emerging self-regulation. Journal of family psychology, 16, pp 447-465.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Parental Influence on the Emotional Development of Children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Parental Influence on the Emotional Development of Children by Bethel Moges and Kristi Weber When most people think of parenting, they picture changing diapers, messy feeding times, and chasing a screaming child through a crowded grocery store.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Impact of Family History of High Myopia on Level and Onset of Myopia | IOVS | ARVO Journals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Internal Locus of Control | Encyclopedia of Psychology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The belief that events in one's life, whether good or bad, are caused by controllable factors such as one's attitude, preparation, and effort. Example: When the boy failed a test, he acknowledged that he hadn't studied enough and didn't understand a few of its key questions.