Wrongful Termination, Narcissistic Injury, and Inability to Accept One's Narcissism: Catch-22s in Narcissists at Work

02 Sep, 2025

https://www.wtsglobal.com/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Workplace-Violence.pdf

Crossposting audience: This is a new subreddit at r/zeronarcissists, the first anti-narcissism subreddit based on scientific evidence as far as I can tell. Please give us a follow at the original sub! We are new and growing.

Workplace Violence Practical Considerations for Mental Health Professionals in Consultation, Assessment, and Management of Risk

Fitness for duty is one well-known application where narcissistic rages and behaviors have to be eliminated before one is allowed to have certain responsibilities that give them the ability to terminate. Hiring someone unfit for duty who showed warning signs in the training can be a gross incompetence that later leads to real deaths. Not taking evaluations of narcissism in leaders/those with this kind of power seriously is seriously and dangerously incompetent. Consultations are not necessarily as serious as these fitness for duty evaluations.

“Distinctions exist between fitness for duty evaluations and violence risk consultations, the latter occurring in dynamic scenarios in which the opinion of risk shifts depending on case developments.”

Ironically to prevent mass wrongful termination, the employer makes themself vulnerable to a wrongful termination charge when firing someone who shows signs of committing wrongful termination over and over again deliberately and pathologically. A good employer only has to do it once to prevent them from having this power, but even that once is always a risk.

“In assessing and managing the potential for workplace violence, employers, and others participating in the evaluation process must first determine whether and how to intervene to ensure safety, yet in a manner mindful of the laws and policies intended to protect the employee of concern. In particular, the employer is subject to claims of invasion of privacy, discrimination, and wrongful termination.”

Fitness for duty generally does not include motives of sexual jealousy or a rejected ex partner, which is often a cause of wrongful termination or other workplace violence motives that aren’t considered part of the issue.

“For the purposes of this article we do not address the issue of “outsider” threats, for example, those posed by a jealous rejected husband or partner of an employee; however, many of the strategic points presented here still apply in those cases.”

Patterns of wrongful termination which escalate up to actual termination in state security, up to and including mass murder, can be detected before the crimes are repeated over and over. The employer has an obligation to terminate this person based on the patterns and evidence witnessed of repeating the same crime over and over and over again, often in the same way, but this is always a risk to do.

“Naturally, media coverage of incidents of workplace violence focuses on the most egregious and tragic cases: those involving mass murder, often by current or former employees.”

Wrongful termination can predict impulse to commit homicide and can escalate up to homicide. A very strange and wrongful termination that then becomes a pattern shows that this individual could definitely be homicidal, and may need to be a candidate for a one time termination to prevent massive and continuous wrongful terminations.

“. In reality, homicide represents the extreme end of a continuum of behaviors comprising workplace violence, has been in steady decline since 1993, and accounts for less than 1% of all violent crimes in the workplace.”

Even things like stalking, threats and emotional abuse are predictors of this kind of person capable of this kind of escalation.

“According to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration2 workplace violence is defined as any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site, and may cause physical or emotional harm. Short of homicide and physical violence, other workplace violence behaviors include stalking, threats, bullying, and emotional abuse.”

These individuals that cause such devastation at their workplace cause burnout, physical health problems and ultimately high turnover.

“Direct and indirect victims may suffer stress or burnout, physical health problems, and may ultimately leave an organization.”

Workplace violence, especially if it shows lack of remorse, is mainly rooted in personal issues and mental illness by the perpetrator.

“Though statistical compilations of the motives for workplace violence are not established, analyses of individual cases suggest the psychological reasons for these more “personalized” types of violence. They may be fueled by real or perceived disputes, rejections, grudges, or extreme beliefs rooted in mental illness.6 In these scenarios, violence is more likely to be intentional, targeting certain individuals or groups.”

Observable signs in the abuser with the capacity to attempt or complete homicide are almost always available, often starting with one very questionable wrongful termination, escalating up to a pattern of repeated wrongful terminations that show an addicted pattern, and then reaching the new threshold of attempted homicide. This individual then should be subjected to analysis for termination, which is one time, and always a risk, due to the excessive terminations needing to be stopped by one final, certain and complete termination, putting their “reign” to an end. Optimally, these risk preventions happen before the fact, allowing for people unfit for duty never reaching such positions of power to begin with.

“There is also a greater chance that an observable warning sign had likely reached the employer, and/or a “triggering context” was looming.”

Workplace violence is usually committed by people unfit for duty, namely, people with impulse control issues and addicted behaviors, so it is generally unplanned.

“The violence in these instances is more commonly affective, that is, impulsive and unplanned.”

It is important to catch these individuals before they get in power because once they get in power they create a culture where people know these individuals are the least likely to admit there is anything wrong with them, the least likely to competently deal with the issue, and the most likely to retaliate when faced with their own limitations of abilities. It creates a catch-22 that is a complete mess to deal with when they’ve already been given the power they’re addicted to; the best way to prevent is fitness for duties and other preventative screenings before they receive the power.

“Ironically, surveys and other studies indicate that health care workers tend to underreport acts of workplace violence for several reasons: the perception that violence is merely “part of the job”7 ; the expectation that nothing will be done, or done effectively, about reported problems; and fear of retaliation in instances in which the perpetrator is a superior of the reporting party.”

Different types of work require different types of preventative mechanisms; fitness for duty metrics should not be blown off or not treated as serious as they are in fields like police work where there were early warning signs, no matter who the person is.

“These contextual differences call for different measures for prevention and management of violence, ranging from security procedures (eg, metal detectors at the entry points to hospitals) to staff training on deescalation of volatile people to preemployment screening and thoughtful policies triggering fitness for duty assessment.”

“Professionals involved in assessing risk must also account for these contextual differences between workplaces when considering the scope and impact of potential violence.”

Past offensive violence is the best predictor of future offensive violence. Unbelievably violent behavior in video games, for example, is equivalent to fitness for duty tests for high responsibility positions. To say these behaviors have no bearing is gross incompetence because they are exactly what are used to hire or not hire police officers and military officers.

“” The consideration of whether they might engage in violence must account for the interaction between the individual, with all their inherent characteristics (eg, history of violence, poor coping skills, symptoms of mental illness), their circumstances (eg, financial stressors, social isolation), their environment (eg, provocation from others, including people in the workplace), and potential targets.”

Short-tempered and prone to agitation predicts affective violence, which is similar to low impulse control.

“Affective violence, as referred to previously, is defined by spur-of-the moment aggression and is rooted in the fight-or-flight response. Individuals who are short-tempered and prone to agitation are more likely to engage in affective violence.”

Predatory, premeditated workplace violence can intersect with short-tempered violence so it is not an either/or. However, premeditated violence is more likely to target very clearly one specific individual, and definitely needs to be sussed out before it receives the power required to target this individual and others like them.

“In contrast, predatory violence refers to premeditated aggression executed in deliberate fashion, without the autonomic and emotional arousal observed in affective violence. Although affective violence is common in workplace settings, and affective and predatory violence are not mutually exclusive in individual cases, much of the research in workplace violence has more recently focused on predatory, targeted violence. The perpetrators of such acts usually have a connection to the workplace, target an individual or group in the organization, or the workplace itself is a symbolic target.”

Premeditation can still be organized even if the perpetrator is paranoid and delusional, including paranoid schizophrenic features or denialist obsessive features.

Violent delusional and paranoid states may contribute in given cases and do not interfere with the perpetrator being organized in his preparation.

Fitness for duty/fitness for the position of power analysis attempt to intercept JACA on the ability to commit violence by stripping those unfit for power of the ability to actualize the abuses they would like to inflict on their targets.

“ De Becker11 formulated the acronym “JACA” to describe that such individuals consider violence Justified, Alternatives to violence to be inadequate or unacceptable, the Consequences for violence to be worthwhile (even including arrest or death,) and they have the Ability and means to carry out violence.”

Threats will occur and may be denied, but they are definitely intended.

“Individuals moving along the pathway to violence may display warning behaviors, such as communicating threats to family or friends, settling their affairs, attaining weapons, or withdrawing from usual routines due to immersing themselves in preparations.”

Narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury stemming from frustrated and undue entitlements predicts this type of workplace violence.

“Specific to the workplace context, extensive case study has revealed a common triggering phenomenon for violence: narcissistic injury and its conversion to narcissistic rage.”

Not allowing their entitlements to go forward is seen as disrespect, when in fact the prevention of undue entitlement is healthy and respectful to social contract, even though it may be inconveniencing to their sense of undue entitlement. Thus entitlement should not be confused with disrespect, even though this is how the perpetrator will report it.

“ Extreme vulnerability to underlying shame, but felt or expressed as a profound sense of injustice or “disrespect,” motivates the violence.”

When faced with due termination, those who engage in workplace violence will try to say it is wrongful termination. The violence that follows proves it was not.Similarly, wrongful termination can be a way to express violence by a manager who does not fulfill fitness for power criteria, including low impulse control, mistaking entitlement for disrespect, and acting on narcissistic injury.

“Psychologically, the act is often one of self-affirmation, a restoration of self-esteem and pride. Perpetrators of workplace violence have often experienced a triggering event of a major setback at work, ranging from unexpectedly being passed over for a promotion to being disciplined or terminated. The scenario of job loss or its potential is quite common in workplace violence consultations, as are ongoing or unsuccessful claims regarding disability, workplace harassment, or wrongful termination.”

Inflated sense of achievement and inability to cope when this inflation is deflated to a more sustainable level based in more facts and reality leads to this violent workplace behavior.

“Individuals vulnerable to narcissistic injury are unable to cope with such setbacks in the manner that more commonly resilient employees demonstrate. Coupled with their often inherent problems adapting to disappointment and loss is their inflated perception of their achievement or value in the workplace, as well as their personal identity being excessively defined by their membership in the organization.”

As usual, vengeance is the choice of the narcissist almost exclusively.

“.6 These factors contribute to the experience of the setback as humiliating, profoundly unfair, unresolvable, intolerable, and demanding action in response.12 The feeling of impotence experienced with the narcissistic injury is resolved through vengeance, as these individuals achieve a “sense of final control. by going out in a blaze of glory.”

Those with histories or pasts with attempted/near-attempted murder-suicides are the highest risks.

“Case reviews of mass murder and workplace murders have demonstrated higher death tolls in those instances in which the perpetrator committed suicide.13 Felthous and Hempel14 point out that nearly all perpetrators of workplace homicide are fundamentally self-destructive. Case studies show that those who do not commit suicide (directly or indirectly) most commonly surrender or are captured without concern for escape or denial of culpability.”

Psychosis with a fight response is also a risk. Depression was cited, but only with violent features and expressions.

“ Psychosis, particularly paranoid delusions focused on individuals in close contact, such as coworkers, can steer an individual toward violence when the individual mistakenly perceives that he or she is in danger.”

Inability to accept anything was done wrong or inability to take responsibility are huge warning signs of ability to commit violence, especially homicide.

“Individuals prone to anger who struggle to accept responsibility, to handle rejection or criticism, or who generally cope poorly with intense emotion are at risk for escalation to violence in response to triggering events.”

Entitlement, aggression, and disregard for others’ feelings are also warning sign indicators of those capable of violence in the workplace.

Questions to ask regarding those who commit or are likely to commit workplace violence after seeing entitlement, aggression and gross disregard

. What is a possible explanation for the behaviors causing alarm?

Are there identifiable motives or causes for violent action?
What would be the nature, severity, and timeline of any violence?
Who would be the likely targets?
What actions would mitigate risk?
What actions might exacerbate risk?

Only a few of those who show entitlement, hot-headedness, gross disregard, acting on narcissistic rage/injury, etc., will commit workplace homicide. But it is still imperative to take preventative action anyway.

“Such studies are sophisticated and expensive and require large sample sizes owing to the base rate issue: among those individuals who make threats or create concern, only a very few ever commit a workplace homicide.”

Effective workplace risk prevention has benefits for everybody, not just people likely to commit workplace violence.

“Effective violence risk prevention programs reduce consequences, such as poor work performance, poor workplace morale, and reduced productivity.”

Odd or non-confirming individuals may be at particular risk for harassment when faced with paranoid or mentally ill coworkers and managers. Stressed employees can be the collateral damage of an organization unable to accept the causes of the stresses as well. These usually do not result in much. Therefore a balance of understanding mental illness and paranoia can occur both in the manager as in those managed should be kept at all times. Nobody is immune to projection.

“Many scenarios of odd, agitated, or disruptive behavior, or even communicated threats, do not actually pose a high level of risk and are effectively handled by individual supervisors, managers, human resources staff, and/or security personnel.”

Underdetection is irrational. Overreacting is also irrational. Analyses should be based on statistics, very clear analytical terms, and should always be able to be spelled out specifically. Things that cannot be spelled out specifically cannot result in actionables and are particularly dangerous and irrational to act on. Acting on things irrationally ironically shows mental instability in the person in power, and that should itself be a glaring red flag.

Not detecting or underestimating potentially high or imminent risk situations

Overreacting to low or no risk situations, causing unnecessary disruption

Misappropriating the organization’s time and resources in such situations

Exacerbating a threat scenario with ill-advised responses that increase risk

Misapplying interventions, for example, treatment or dispute resolution in situations in which they will have little or no impact

Rational behavior means following established policy to a t, conducting threat assessments diligently and with excellence, and sticking to facts and scientific methodology.

Although it can be tempting and even justified to suspend or terminate an employee who has been engaging in various forms of misconduct or threatening behavior, doing so without considering the potential for these steps to represent triggering events for the at-risk individual can be perilous. Employers should consider conducting a threat assessment before taking significant disciplinary action against an employee raising concern for violence risk

Terminations of those not fit for their position should be done with dignity and allow them to save as much face as possible. Otherwise, they will create excessive terminations without dignity, destroying their workplace environment, doing serious damage to cultural trust and faith in institutions. They must be intercepted immediately.

“When the decision is made to terminate an employee for conduct, suggesting that he or she poses a risk of violence, employers must recognize that risk is not necessarily eliminated. Every effort should be made to handle termination in a manner that preserves the individual’s dignity and offers them the maximum opportunity to save face.”

Employers are required by law to protect individuals from threats, harassment, and workplace violence. Failure is a failure to respect civil rights law, which is a glaring red risk flag in itself.

“There are numerous foundations for employers’ responsibility to maintain a safe workplace. OSHA’s “General Duty Clause” requires that the workplace be “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm” to employees.21 Employers are required by civil rights legislation to protect employees from harassment, including threats and violence, and if employees suffer injuries in the course of employment they are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.”

Interestingly, those unable to accept their disability (if narcissism is a disability) are in a catch-22 because they need to be removed from power if they cannot control themselves, but they are also potentially subject to disability claims. Ironically, they are the last to respect things like ADA due to failure to lower self-enhancement when faced with facts about their inabilities and narcissistic rage when forced to face those facts.

“The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects employees with disabilities (including a variety of psychiatric conditions, such as personality disorders) from discrimination in all aspects of the employment process, including discipline and termination. ADA issues are often the focus of fitness for duty examinations, common scenarios in which evaluators encounter concerns about workplace violence.”

Aggression and paranoia is seen in this individual, Bob.

““Bob” has been a maintenance mechanic at a small college for approximately a year and a half. His performance is average and he is subject to procedural mistakes that he denies are his doing. He is regarded as “prickly” and easily frustrated. His boss, Roger, is inconsistent in his supervision, and especially doesn’t like dealing with Bob “because you can’t talk to the guy.” Bob has said openly, “I never trusted any boss. They are all alike.” Coworkers can see that Roger is intimidated by Bob and is not dealing with him. When Bob learned that Roger had advocated for his own cousin to get hired at the college, in a completely unrelated department, he became very agitated and began making comments about “favoritism.” He mumbled in the work bay about having been fired once because of “unfair treatment by members of the same family who ganged up on me.” He started a “log,” documenting Roger’s “harassment and discrimination” against him. When coworkers complained about Bob’s increasing suspiciousness and unfounded accusations that they were “helping Roger set me up to get fired,” the labor relations representative met with him. Clear signs of aggression: Bob got very angry in the meeting, accused the representative of colluding with Roger, and demanded someone else conduct an investigation. The representative felt very frightened of Bob and no longer agreed to meet with him. This led to Bob getting a written notice that his “unprofessional conduct will not be tolerated,” actionable, clear signs of aggression: that he must control his temper, and that any such “outbursts” in the future would lead to “further disciplinary action up to and including discharge.” He was referred to the employee assistance program and recommended that he get into an “anger management” program. Violent threat is what made this actionable: Bob taped the letter to the door of Roger’s office, and wrote on it, “No wonder people come into work and blow everyone away! This is the kind of shit that makes them do it!” He then left the building. As management considered what to do next, Bob called in later and claimed he was suffering “emotional distress and anxiety” from being harassed and was unable to work. Could be gaslighting legitimately by Roger, and shows poor to nonexisting emotional intelligence and trauma intelligence by Roger why Bob is stressed, nevertheless Bob has had temper outbursts and made threats, these are the actionables: In this case, Bob’s perceptions and behaviors at work very likely stem from paranoid issues. Naturally mistrustful and defensive, especially under stress, he is not easy to help or manage with normal supervisory actions. Perceiving malicious intent where none exists leads to further anger on his part and increased avoidance by his boss. His display of problematic behaviors in the workplace for quite some time before any action was taken is a common scenario. Applying scientific tools to the situation to analyze risk is the correct act, instead of just assuming there is a risk without scientific methodology: Concern is another signal that assessment is warranted.”

Extreme behavior in the form of volatility was witnessed on Bob when faced with shame.

“Given Bob’s susceptibility to shame and subsequent volatility, the entire evaluation response must be handled carefully, and likely include coordinating the assessment process with security measures.”

Additional Analysis by u/theconstellinguist ; I have a specialization in Risk Management.

Volatility assessments only stem from threats and violent outbursts, and only because of these will there likely be a remedial/credible volatility threat found that is a threat to the physical safety of other employees.

However, there were clear signs of feelings of psychological unsafety by Bob before that created this situation that were not acted on immediately to resolve his feelings of psychological unsafety. It seems like Bob is acting up because he is feeling otherized and placed in a sense of "other" while he is part of the team. That is a legitimate warning sign of harassment, and his concerns about nepotism are legitimate, whether or not the department was unrelated. The analysis is lacking pretty much any empathy for Bob, which makes it low in emotional intelligence which increases risk.

Violence assessments do not come from stress-based behavior such as depressive behavior, which if treated as potentially violent would be clear discrimination on ADA. Only anger-based/violent-based/threat-based actions are valid violence assessments; penalizing depressive or non-positive mood is both discriminatory and psychologically unsafe. It is also irrational overreaction to normal employee behavior when stressed which is on the manager to deal with competently, not overreact to as a threat. In fact it may in fact show malicious intent and/or overreactive management if the overreaction is pervasive and targeted at one employee, so Bob is not entirely wrong given Roger seems to lack the emotional intelligence to understand Bob's position why he thinks he is being harassed which is based on some valid concerns and thus is making the issue worse due to his low emotional and trauma intelligence by making Bob feel unheard.

The main concerns are the threats and angry outbursts, which are predictors of violence.

Again, chronic overreaction to stressed behavior may be a sign of a manager with low self-awareness and low emotional intelligence unable to resolve the stressors in the workplace and instead making employees into risks instead of analyzing the pervasive stressors in the design for which they are responsible.

It also shows heightened willingness to otherize Bob instead of considering him a valuable part of the team, which leads to feelings of psychological unsafety which are likely behind the episodes. So Bob is not entirely wrong, and should not feel undefended and unheard, exacerbating the issue and showing incompetence in using methods that make the situation worse.

Otherizing, leaving someone without valid defense, and making someone feel unheard while doing nothing about stressors and doing no stressor analysis is gross managerial incompetence and in violation of point 4 of risk management in this regard.

The only valid risk management actionables were the threats and the angry outbursts which warranted assessment before claims that made the situation worse through overreaction were taken.

There are some signs of legitimate discrimination against Bob for depression/depressive mood here, and this discrimination seems to have caused illegal otherization of him which escalated into violence.

Discrimination for depression is serious discrimination, and hyperfocus on depressive features is harassment if there have been no violent/angry outbursts actually occurring. This employer may be legally liable for discrimination suit based on a protected disability without features initially showing.

Roger does show clear otherization in the way he describes Bob long before he shows signs of anger/threats. This means he should be reevaluated as a manager for overreactive fear circuitry as he is not very emotionally intelligent and not including people as part of his team who are on his team.

An employer low in emotional intelligence is likely to project, so Roger's analysis should be checked and balanced for projection seeing here many of the signs of overreactive fear circuitry and low emotional/trauma intelligence.