Narcissist Flying Monkeys: How They’re Recruited, What They Do, and How to Stop Them
When you leave a narcissistic relationship, the abuse rarely ends. It simply changes shape. Flying monkeys are the people a narcissist recruits, knowingly or not, to carry out surveillance and pressure on his behalf. This article explains how that recruitment works, the four specific roles these individuals play, why the strategy lands so effectively in women’s social networks, and what you can do to protect yourself without burning every bridge in sight.
- Kira Finishes the Latte and Is Careful for the Rest of the Conversation
- What “Flying Monkeys” Are — The Clinical and Cultural Definition
- How Narcissists Recruit Flying Monkeys (Without Most Recruits Knowing It’s Happening)
- The Four Roles Flying Monkeys Play: Messenger, Spy, Defender, and Enforcer
- Why Some Flying Monkeys Are Also Victims of the Same Person
- Both/And: You Can Understand Why They Were Recruited AND Still Need to Limit Your Exposure
- The Systemic Lens: Why Narcissistic Smear Campaigns Are So Effective in Women’s Social Networks
- How to Manage Flying Monkey Contacts — A Practical Protocol
- Frequently Asked Questions
Kira Finishes the Latte and Is Careful for the Rest of the Conversation
It’s Saturday morning, 11am, the kind of golden-hour coffee she’s been meaning to schedule for weeks — and then her friend says: “He mentioned you haven’t replied to his last three messages. Is everything okay?” The question lands wrong before Kira can name exactly why. She never told this friend how many messages there were. She didn’t mention the messages at all.
The warmth she has always felt for this woman, years of closeness and the particular shorthand of a long friendship, turns slightly strange. The way milk looks fine until the moment it doesn’t. Her friend doesn’t know she’s done anything. She’s leaning forward with genuine concern, hands wrapped around her own cup, face open and kind.
Kira picks up the latte and drinks it faster than she means to, because she needs something to do with her face while she thinks. She doesn’t know she’s doing it. She thinks she’s helping. That makes it harder to be angry at her and easier to be lost. She finishes the latte. She is careful for the rest of the conversation — asking about her friend’s sister, laughing at the right moments, saying nothing about the three messages, or the twelve before them, or the reason she stopped replying at all.
This is what narcissistic flying monkey dynamics actually look like in real life. Not a villain. Not a confrontation. Just a friend who got a very compelling, very one-sided story and is now acting as a relay station between Kira and the person she left. Four months after the relationship ended, the control is still operating through people she loves.
If this recognition lands for you, if you’ve been sitting across from someone you trust and felt that same cold specific dread, this article is for you. We’re going to name what’s happening, explain how it works, and give you a protocol for managing it without losing yourself in the process.
What “Flying Monkeys” Are — The Clinical and Cultural Definition
The term gets used a lot in online narcissistic abuse spaces, sometimes loosely, sometimes with the kind of righteous anger that can make any difficult person in your orbit sound like a co-conspirator. It’s worth being precise about what it actually means — because precision is what lets you act effectively instead of just reactively.
A colloquial term derived from the enchanted winged primates in The Wizard of Oz, used in narcissistic abuse recovery literature to describe individuals who are recruited (consciously or not) to carry out relational, social, or logistical tasks on behalf of a narcissistic person. The term entered the abuse recovery lexicon through advocates including Sandra Brown, MA, CEO of the Institute for Relational Harm Reduction and Public Pathology Education, whose work on high-lethality intimate partner violence includes extensive analysis of how abusers use third-party proxies to maintain contact with and control over survivors.
In plain terms: Flying monkeys are the people your ex sends, or who go on his behalf without being explicitly sent, to gather information about you, deliver his messages, defend his reputation, or pressure you to reconsider. Most of them genuinely believe they’re helping. That doesn’t change the effect.
Calling someone a flying monkey is a functional description of the role they’re playing in a specific dynamic, not a permanent character judgment. People can step into this role and then step out of it. The term is a handle for a pattern — use it that way, not as a verdict.
What distinguishes flying monkey behavior from ordinary social interference is the directional flow of information and pressure. In a normal breakup, friends take sides and talk — that’s painful but organic. In a narcissistic dynamic, what you’re observing is coordinated, even when none of the individuals involved think of it as coordination. One person is strategically positioning a narrative; everyone else is responding to the story they were given.
In my work with clients navigating post-separation abuse, the flying monkey dynamic is almost always the first thing that makes a woman doubt her own read on the relationship. Because when her own friends and family are questioning her account, repeating his phrases, and expressing concern about his wellbeing, it’s hard to hold onto what she knows. That destabilization is not an accident. It’s the point.
If you’re trying to understand the full landscape of post-separation tactics, the smear campaign guide on this site covers how the underlying narrative gets built. Flying monkey recruitment is often the delivery mechanism for that campaign once the story is in circulation.
How Narcissists Recruit Flying Monkeys (Without Most Recruits Knowing It’s Happening)
The recruitment process is one of the most unsettling things to understand, because it looks so much like ordinary reaching out. He calls a mutual friend to say he’s worried about you. He texts her sister because he doesn’t know who else to turn to. He shows up at a family gathering visibly sad and says very little, which prompts everyone to ask questions. He doesn’t hand anyone a mission statement. He hands them a feeling: usually concern, sometimes protectiveness, occasionally outrage. And that feeling does the rest.
In the context of narcissistic and coercive control dynamics, triangulation is the deliberate use of third parties to manage, destabilize, and maintain influence over a target. The narcissist inserts a third person, or the idea of a third person, into the primary relationship to provoke jealousy, undermine the target’s confidence, or extend his reach beyond what direct contact can accomplish. Post-separation, triangulation typically shifts from romantic rivals to social proxies: friends, family members, colleagues, or mutual acquaintances who can access the target when direct contact has been blocked or limited.
In plain terms: Triangulation is how he stays in your life without being in your life. Instead of reaching you directly, he reaches the people around you and uses them as the connective tissue between his world and yours.
Lundy Bancroft, author of Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men, writes about the social support systems that abusive men cultivate, often long before the relationship ends. Abusers build a surrounding community of people who know them as charming, reasonable, even victimized — and this community functions as an implicit validator of his account and a doubter of hers. What Bancroft identifies is not a post-breakup strategy so much as an ongoing infrastructure: the flying monkeys weren’t recruited after she left; they were positioned there throughout the relationship.
Sandra Brown, MA, CEO of the Institute for Relational Harm Reduction, has documented how narcissists and psychopaths specifically target individuals with high empathy for proxy roles. These people are emotionally responsive, socially connected, and motivated by helpfulness. They’re chosen because they’ll respond to a compelling emotional appeal, because they’re trusted by the target, and because their concern will read as authentic rather than planted. The friend who’s known you for fifteen years and genuinely loves you is the most effective flying monkey, precisely because you can’t dismiss her.
The construction of the story he gives them usually follows a recognizable structure: he loved her deeply, he’s confused by what happened, she seems to be struggling and he’s worried, he’s been trying to reach her but she won’t respond. Sometimes there’s a twist — she’s been talking to someone else, she said something hurtful. The story is designed to generate concern without obviously asking anyone to do anything. He doesn’t need to ask. Concerned people reach out.
Understanding this recruitment process shifts how you make sense of the behavior you’re seeing. Your friend isn’t being malicious. She received a targeted emotional appeal from someone she’s known for years and she’s doing exactly what a caring person would do. Her behavior is the output of a very effective input. That distinction matters — not because it lets him off the hook, but because it tells you something about what approach with her might actually work.
The Four Roles Flying Monkeys Play: Messenger, Spy, Defender, and Enforcer
Not all flying monkey behavior looks the same, and naming the specific role someone is playing makes it easier to decide how to respond. In my work with clients in trauma-informed individual therapy, I’ve found that collapsing all of these into one category tends to produce the same response to everyone, which often means over-cutting people who could be recovered and under-limiting exposure to people who are actively harming you. The four roles warrant different responses.
The Messenger carries communications from him to you. Sometimes these are explicit (“He wanted me to tell you…”) and sometimes they’re embedded in seemingly casual conversation, like Kira’s friend asking about the three messages. The Messenger often doesn’t experience herself as delivering a message; she experiences herself as expressing care. The function is the same regardless of her self-perception — she’s a conduit through which contact is being maintained despite your attempts to limit it.
The Spy gathers information about you and, consciously or not, funnels it back to him. This can look like innocent check-ins that leave you feeling exposed: questions about where you’re living now, who you’ve been spending time with, whether you’re dating anyone, how you seem to be doing. You might not realize the intelligence is flowing backward until you notice that he knows things he shouldn’t know — that you moved, that you’ve been at your sister’s, that you’re seeing someone.
The Defender advocates for him. She corrects your account of events, reminds you of his good qualities, questions your interpretation, suggests you’re being too harsh or that you’ll regret this. The Defender usually believes she’s being balanced and fair. What she’s actually doing is introducing doubt into your account of your own experience at the exact moment when your clarity is the thing most worth protecting.
The Enforcer applies pressure. This is rarer and more overtly coercive: the person who tells you what will happen to your reputation if you don’t reconsider, who implies there will be consequences in shared social or professional spaces, or who delivers veiled threats disguised as concern. If someone in your network is operating as an Enforcer, this is worth taking seriously as a safety concern — the complete guide to going no contact has specific guidance for managing high-stakes post-separation pressure.
Most flying monkeys occupy the Messenger and Spy roles and do so without any conscious awareness that they’re functioning this way. The Defender and Enforcer roles carry more intentionality, though even most Defenders genuinely believe they’re helping both parties rather than advocating for one.
Why Some Flying Monkeys Are Also Victims of the Same Person
One of the most disorienting aspects of this dynamic, and one that doesn’t get named enough, is that some of the people acting as flying monkeys are themselves being manipulated by the same person who hurt you. This isn’t a fringe scenario. In relationships with narcissistic individuals, the pattern of strategic charm, emotional manipulation, and selective information management doesn’t stay contained to the romantic partnership. It radiates outward.
Consider that his closest friends may have spent years receiving the same selective presentation, the same emotional intensity directed at sustaining their loyalty. They may have their own complicated relationship with him — their own history of feeling special when he chose them and diminished when he didn’t. They may be trauma bonded to him in a way that’s different from yours but not entirely unlike it.
This is part of why appealing directly to flying monkeys with your account of the relationship so rarely works. The same psychological mechanisms that kept you inside the dynamic are, in some cases, operating inside them as well. They’re not weighing your story against his story on a level surface. They’re weighing it inside a relationship that has already taught them, as yours taught you, which version of reality is safe to hold.
There’s a secondary vignette worth naming here. Elena, a client I’ll describe in composite, spent three months after leaving her marriage trying to win back the narrative with his family. She’d been close with his mother for seven years. She sent careful, measured texts and offered her account with evidence and dates. What she got back was a version of events so thoroughly shaped by what he’d told them that she felt, each time, like she’d walked into a room and found the furniture rearranged in the dark. Elena eventually stopped trying. It wasn’t giving up — it was recognizing what she was spending herself on and choosing differently.
This is a hard thing to sit with: some of the people you’re grieving alongside the relationship aren’t recoverable right now, not because they’re bad people, but because they’re inside the same structure that trapped you. That moment of rupture may come for some of them eventually. Holding space for those friendship losses, a secondary injury of the relationship, is real work worth bringing into therapy rather than carrying alone.
Both/And: You Can Understand Why They Were Recruited AND Still Need to Limit Your Exposure
Here is where I want to name the Both/And that gets lost in a lot of online narcissistic abuse content, which tends to sort people into the abuser’s camp or yours and suggest that everyone in the former category needs to be cut immediately and permanently.
Both/And: Most flying monkeys are not malicious. They have been given a compelling, sympathetic narrative: he is hurt, he is confused, he is worried about you. And they are acting on it in good faith, using the empathy and social concern that make them genuinely good people. AND the effect on you is the same regardless of their intent: your privacy is violated, your account of events is undermined, the social network around you functions as an extension of his control. You can hold complete compassion for their position AND still need to manage your exposure to them carefully, at least while the dynamic is live.
What I see consistently in my work is that women in post-narcissistic-relationship recovery often get stuck on one side of this Both/And. Some are so committed to understanding that they stay exposed far beyond what’s safe. Others swing to a scorched-earth social response, cutting anyone who ever spoke well of him and ending up far more isolated than they need to be, which ironically makes the recovery harder.
The Both/And framework asks you to hold both truths at once. She is a good person who was given a bad story. And her goodness doesn’t make the information she’s passing backward any less harmful. You can love her and still need to stop telling her things. You can hope she eventually sees through his account and still not be available to her while she doesn’t. Compassion and self-protection are not opposites — they can coexist in the same carefully managed coffee date, the same pleasant conversation that doesn’t include anything real.
This kind of careful management is exhausting, I know. In my work with clients in executive coaching and therapy, the sustained performance of normalcy within relationships that have become surveillance channels is one of the most quietly depleting aspects of this whole experience. What Kira did at the end of that Saturday coffee, being careful for the rest of the conversation, is a cognitive and emotional feat that should not be underestimated. It takes something from you. Which is one more reason to reduce the number of relationships in which you have to do it.
The Systemic Lens: Why Narcissistic Smear Campaigns Are So Effective in Women’s Social Networks
There’s a structural dimension to why the flying monkey dynamic lands so effectively, and it has to do with the specific architecture of how women’s friendships and social bonds are built. Not because women are uniquely gullible — but because the qualities that make women’s friendships so sustaining are exactly the qualities the narcissist’s strategy is designed to exploit.
“The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”
AUDRE LORDE, poet, essayist, and activist, Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches
Women’s close friendships are, as a general cultural norm, built on trust, reciprocal vulnerability, shared information, and loyalty to the emotional truth of another person’s experience. When a woman says to her friend, “I’m really struggling with this and I’m scared,” the relational expectation is that her friend will respond with belief and support, not interrogation. This is a feature, not a bug. It’s what makes close female friendships a genuine resource for mental health and resilience.
The narcissist’s smear campaign is built to use that architecture against the survivor. He delivers his story in the register of emotional vulnerability. He’s not accusing; he’s confiding. He’s not positioning himself; he’s reaching out to people he trusts. He activates the same relational reflex, the one that says “believe and support the person in front of you,” that serves his female network well in every other context. Because women’s friendships carry expectations of shared information and mutual concern, the story travels efficiently.
Sandra Brown, MA, CEO of the Institute for Relational Harm Reduction, has described how perpetrators of relational harm study the empathic responses of those around them and construct their narratives to hit those pressure points precisely. The women in your network who became instruments of the dynamic weren’t weak or disloyal. They were responsive to what looked, from the outside, like a person in pain.
Audre Lorde wrote that the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. When you try to convince a flying monkey that your ex is not who he says he is, you’re working inside the relational framework he constructed. You’re appealing to people through the social logic he shaped, using the emotional vocabulary he defined, asking for an outcome that requires them to reject a story they already feel invested in. It rarely dismantles the structure, and it often provides him with exactly the information and emotional response he was angling for when he sent them to you in the first place.
It’s worth naming this structural reality without turning against your entire friendship network, because that’s often the unintended consequence: you start seeing surveillance everywhere, shrinking your world until you’re more isolated than he could have achieved through direct abuse alone. The goal is targeted clarity, not blanket suspicion. Most of your friends are not flying monkeys; some are; fewer still are acting with any conscious knowledge of the role they’re playing.
There’s also a collective dimension here. The more women understand how this dynamic uses relational trust as a delivery system for abuse, the harder it becomes to run. A friend who understands flying monkey recruitment can receive a sad story from your ex, feel the pull of it, and still pause to ask: “Wait. Why is he telling me this?” That pause is the intervention. The smear campaign guide on this site is a useful resource to share with people in your network who are open to understanding what’s happening.
How to Manage Flying Monkey Contacts — A Practical Protocol
The practical question at the center of this is: what do you actually do? Not in the abstract, but on Saturday morning when you’re sitting across from your friend, latte in hand, realizing what’s happening. Here is the protocol I walk clients through in individual therapy and in the Fixing the Foundations course.
Step one: Audit without action. Before you make any moves, spend a week or two simply noticing. Who is asking specific questions about him? Who is delivering information that could only have come from him? Who is pressing you to reconsider or respond? Write it down — not to build a case, but to see the pattern clearly before the emotional heat of individual interactions distorts it.
Step two: Triage by role and relationship. Not all flying monkeys warrant the same response. A peripheral acquaintance who’s clearly in his camp can be quietly deprioritized without a conversation. A close friend operating as an unintentional Messenger may deserve a careful, explicit conversation — or at minimum, a change in what you share with her. A family member functioning as an Enforcer may require a hard limit. Triage by both the role they’re playing and the value of the relationship to you.
Step three: Information diet, not total cutoff. For most flying monkey contacts, the most effective intervention is not ending the relationship. It’s changing what information they have access to. You can maintain a warm, functional friendship with someone while stopping the flow of anything that could be relayed: your address, your plans, your emotional state, your account of the relationship, your legal situation, your new relationships. This feels artificial at first. It eventually becomes a habit. You get very good at being warm and present while being strategically opaque.
Step four: Direct conversation, carefully timed. With close friends or family members who are important to you, a direct conversation is sometimes worth having, but the timing and framing matter enormously. The worst framing is “you’re being used by him,” which puts her on the defensive and rarely lands. A better framing: “I’ve noticed some information seems to be getting back to him, and I need to be careful right now about what I share with anyone while I’m protecting myself. It’s not about you — it’s about where I am.” This keeps the door open and doesn’t require her to admit or recognize anything she may not be ready to see.
Step five: No Contact or gray rock for direct contact attempts. If he’s using flying monkeys because your own contact with him is limited, maintain that limit. Don’t let his proxies accomplish what you’ve blocked him from doing directly. The complete no contact guide on this site covers both hard no contact and the gray rock method, a technique for making yourself profoundly uninteresting as an information source when full no contact isn’t possible.
Step six: Don’t try to correct the narrative through his channels. This is the hardest thing to hold. When you hear that he’s telling people a version of events that bears no resemblance to what happened, the urge to correct it is understandable and almost always counterproductive. Lundy Bancroft notes that abusers often predict and plan for exactly this response — the woman who looks reactive, who’s trying to manage the story, who seems emotional and uncontrolled in contrast to his composed, concerned presentation. Your energy spent trying to win the narrative through his social network is energy that could go into building a life that speaks for itself. A free consultation with our team can help you figure out where to put that energy instead.
Step seven: Build your independent social infrastructure. The flying monkey dynamic is most debilitating when he has access to most of your social world. One of the longer-term goals of post-separation recovery is building relationships he doesn’t know, can’t access, and has no history with — people who know you in your current chapter, not the one he constructed. This isn’t about replacing lost relationships; it’s about creating a social ecosystem that exists outside his reach, where you can be fully yourself without calculating what will be relayed.
The work of managing flying monkey contacts sits at the intersection of practical strategy and deep relational grief. You’re not just managing tactics — you’re grieving a version of your social world that no longer exists in the same form, making decisions about people you love under conditions you didn’t choose. If you’re navigating this and finding it heavier than you can hold on your own, the Strong & Stable newsletter is one place to start, and individual therapy with someone trained in post-narcissistic-abuse recovery is often the most direct path through.
Kira, four months out, sitting across from her friend, drinking the latte too fast: she’s doing the hardest, most invisible kind of work. She’s holding her knowledge without deploying it. She’s maintaining a relationship while changing its terms. She’s being careful in a way that most people will never see or name as the hard-won skill it is. If that’s where you are right now, I want you to know: the carefulness isn’t a loss. It’s a form of protection you’re building, one quiet coffee at a time, until the infrastructure of his influence no longer reaches you.
Q: What are flying monkeys in narcissistic abuse?
A: Flying monkeys are individuals (friends, family members, colleagues, or acquaintances) who are recruited, consciously or not, to carry out tasks on behalf of a narcissistic person. These tasks typically involve gathering information about the target, delivering messages or pressure on his behalf, defending his reputation and narrative, or applying social consequences for non-compliance. The term comes from The Wizard of Oz and entered the abuse recovery lexicon through advocates documenting proxy-based coercive control. Most flying monkeys are not acting maliciously; they’ve received a compelling, sympathetic version of events and are responding to it in good faith.
Q: How do I know if someone in my life is acting as a flying monkey?
A: The clearest signal is specific information: someone references details about your situation that they couldn’t know unless they’d spoken with him recently, or asks questions that are precise in a way that feels directional rather than casual. Other signs include pressure to reconsider or respond to him, subtle challenges to your account of the relationship, reports that he’s very sad or struggling that seem designed to provoke guilt, and a pattern of check-in conversations that consistently return to him. Trust that cold specific dread — the feeling that the wrong information arrived through the wrong channel. It’s usually accurate.
Q: Should I try to explain the truth to flying monkeys?
A: In most cases, trying to correct the narrative directly and immediately doesn’t work and can actually make things worse. When you present your account to someone who’s been given his version, you’re asking them to dismantle a story they’ve already emotionally organized themselves around — and you’re providing him with information about your emotional state and communication in the process. There are exceptions: a close friend who is asking genuinely open questions and seems to be doing her own thinking may be ready to hear something different. But the timing, framing, and relationship quality all have to be right. The general principle is: don’t try to win the narrative through his channels.
Q: What do I do if a flying monkey is also a close friend or family member?
A: This is one of the most painful aspects of post-narcissistic-relationship recovery: when the people you most need for support are also, inadvertently, part of the surveillance and pressure system. The practical answer is an information diet: you don’t have to cut the relationship, but you do need to change what you share. Keep the warmth, keep the connection, and stop the flow of anything that could reach him — your location, your emotional state, your plans, your account of events. For truly close relationships worth fighting for, a careful direct conversation framed around your own need to protect yourself (rather than an accusation of their loyalty) is sometimes worth attempting.
Q: Can flying monkeys ever become aware of what they’re doing and change?
A: Yes — and it happens more often than you might expect. People who were recruited into this role sometimes eventually experience the same kind of devaluation and manipulation from him that you experienced, and that rupture creates the space for them to look back at the narrative they were given and question it. Some flying monkeys, once they’ve had enough distance from his direct influence, come back with genuine understanding and apology. Others don’t, and it’s worth not organizing your recovery around the hope that they will. You can hold the door open without waiting in front of it.
Related Reading
- Bancroft, Lundy. Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men. New York: Berkley Books, 2002.
- Brown, Sandra. Women Who Love Psychopaths: Inside the Relationships of Inevitable Harm. 3rd ed. Penrose, NC: Mask Publishing, 2018.
- Lorde, Audre. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Trumansburg, NY: Crossing Press, 1984.
- Herman, Judith. Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence — From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror. New York: Basic Books, 1992.
- Johnson, Susan M. Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love. New York: Little, Brown Spark, 2008.
WAYS TO WORK WITH ANNIE
Individual Therapy
Trauma-informed therapy for driven women healing relational trauma. Licensed in 9 states.
Executive Coaching
Trauma-informed coaching for ambitious women navigating leadership and burnout.
Fixing the Foundations
Annie’s signature course for relational trauma recovery. Work at your own pace.
Strong & Stable
The Sunday conversation you wished you’d had years earlier. 20,000+ subscribers.
Annie Wright, LMFT
LMFT · Relational Trauma Specialist · W.W. Norton Author
Helping ambitious women finally feel as good as their résumé looks.
Annie Wright is a licensed psychotherapist (LMFT #95719) and trauma-informed executive coach with over 15,000 clinical hours. She works with driven, ambitious women — including Silicon Valley leaders, physicians, and entrepreneurs — in repairing the psychological foundations beneath their impressive lives. Annie is the founder and former CEO of Evergreen Counseling, a multimillion-dollar trauma-informed therapy center she built, scaled, and successfully exited. A regular contributor to Psychology Today, her expert commentary has appeared in Forbes, Business Insider, Inc., NBC, and The Information. She is currently writing her first book with W.W. Norton.
