Probably because just about anyone can do it, backstabbing is perhaps the most common form of workplace aggression. The art, of course, lies in executing the aggression undetected. When things haven't gone as well as you expected, almost certainly, once in a while, Chance or Misfortune were not the only cause. A backstabber might have been involved. Let's take a close look at backstabbing — what it is, what it isn't, and how it's done.
The fundamental elements of backstabbing are aggression and deception.
- An interaction can be backstabbing if one person, the attacker, mounts an attack on another, the target. The attack isn't physical, but it must be a genuine attempt to harm the target's social or professional position or prospects, or to deprive the target of something the target desires or needs. The attack can be backstabbing even if it it's unsuccessful.
- By concealing preparations, by lying or other disinformation, or by "false flag" conduct, the attacker deceives the target. False flag conduct is that which is intended to create a false belief that the relationship between attacker and target is friendly. Typically, attackers pretend to befriend their targets, or to mentor their targets, or to be disinterested in their targets. By whatever means, the attacker leads the target to believe that no attack is imminent, that the attacker isn't preparing an attack, or that the attacker would never even consider attacking the target.
Some definitions of backstabbing require that the attack occur outside the target's awareness, such as by spreading rumors or lying to third parties in secret. But a direct attack on the target at a meeting, for example, could also be backstabbing if, for instance, the attacker led the target to expect the attacker's support for the target's views in that meeting.
Here are more examples of backstabbing tactics.
- Disclosing confidences
- The attacker By concealing preparations, by
lying or other disinformation,
or by "false flag" conduct, the
attacker deceives the targetpromises to honor a confidence, planning to disclose it later to harm the target.
- Withholding helpful information
- The attacker intentionally withholds information from the target so as to cause harm. This tactic is deniable: "I was going to tell you tomorrow," or, "I thought you knew."
- The attacker intentionally distorts or exaggerates a report of an event or situation so as to cause harm.
- The attacker makes or supports claims that he or she doesn't believe, and which are harmful to the target. See "The Costanza Matrix," Point Lookout for March 16, 2016, for more about lies.
- Stealing or misallocating credit
- The attacker claims credit for the target's contributions, or abets illegitimate claims of others to some of the target's contributions.
- Shifting accountability
- When something goes wrong, the attacker arranges for the target to be held accountable, whether or not the target had any role in the failure.
- Fomenting backstabbing
- The attacker encourages others to engage in any of the tactics above.
When attacked, try to determine whether the attacker used deception. If so, respond with care. Other undetected deceptions might remain active, ready to foil any response you might hastily choose. Top Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Conflict Management:
- Conflict Haiku
- When tempers flare, or tension fills the air, many of us contribute to the stew, often without realizing
that we do. Here are some haiku that describe some of the many stances we choose that can lead groups
into tangles, or let those tangles persist once they form.
- The Fine Art of Quibbling
- We usually think of quibbling as an innocent swan dive into unnecessary detail, like calculating shares
of a lunch check to the nearest cent. In debate about substantive issues, a detour into quibbling can
be far more threatening — it can indicate much deeper problems.
- Masked Messages
- Sometimes what we say to each other isn't what we really mean. We mask the messages, or we form them
into what are usually positive structures, to make them appear to be something less malicious than they
are. Here are some examples of masked messages.
- The Knowledge One-Upmanship Game
- The Knowledge One-Upmanship Game is a pattern of group behavior in the form of a contest to determine
which player knows the most arcane fact. It can seem like innocent fun, but it can disrupt a team's
ability to collaborate.
- Unintended Condescension: I
- Condescending remarks can deflect almost any conversation into destructive directions. The lost productivity
is especially painful when the condescension is unintended. Here are two examples of remarks that others
might hear as condescension, but which often aren't intended as such.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.