Deniable intimidation is stealthy. The intimidator-aggressor uses intimidation to manipulate others, but wants to avoid being caught at it. To onlookers, deniable intimidation looks innocent, but to the intimidator's target it can be maddening and humiliating. Responding to deniable intimidation with conventional counter-intimidation is risky, because onlookers tend to see the target's defensive behavior as gratuitous aggression. That's one reason why intimidators seek deniability.
How then can targets respond? In what follows, I'll refer to the intimidator as the aggressor and the target as the defender.
- Centering helps
- Defenders who center themselves can think more clearly and maintain self-control more easily. Knowing right from wrong and convincing themselves that their own behavior is appropriate are strategies helpful to defenders.
- Be selective
- Defenders needn't respond to every assault. They might have to acknowledge that an assault has occurred: "I hear you." But they don't have to mix it up with the aggressor every time.
- Wait for it
- Withstanding deniable intimidation and abuse with aplomb can sometimes compel the aggressor to adopt less deniable tactics. Frustrated that their stealthy approaches aren't working, some aggressors forget that their preferred strategy was based on deniability. They become impatient, lose composure, and attack more directly. When that happens, targets have much more freedom to choose counter-aggressive responses.
- Remember the non-verbal options
- Targets usually consider only verbal responses, especially when aggressors choose email as the medium for attacks. While verbal responses are often useful, non-verbal responses can be even more effective. For example, in email, delaying a response can fluster the attacker and give the target more time to devise effective responses. In face-to-face meetings, a brief, confident smile might be more effective than a blatant counter-insult.
- Counter-intimidate the aggressor in private
- In private, straightforward counter-intimidation is relatively low risk, because there are no observers. But since the aggressor might cite anything the defender does or says as evidence of the defender's aggressiveness, defenders must be prepared to convincingly deny anything that might reflect unfavorably upon them. Since the aggressor might make fraudulent accusations, defenders must also convincingly deny falsehoods. Their manner must be equally convincing for both true and false accusations.
- Rattle the aggressor
- Rattled, Targets usually consider only verbal
responses, especially when aggressors
choose email as the medium for attacksthe aggressor is more likely to engage in blatant intimidation. Techniques that rattle aggressors include a charming, affable manner, deft use of humor, a calm demeanor, keeping one's cool, comfortable and obvious alliances with others, and superior performance.
- Seize the initiative
- Letting the aggressor determine the tempo and content of the exchange cedes the advantage to the aggressor, who can choose favorable times and settings for deniable attacks. By seizing the initiative, defenders can choose times and settings favorable to them.
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 Emotions at Work:
- Are You Taking on the Full Load?
- Taking on the full load is what we do when we feel fully responsible for either the success or the failure
of some organizational activity. Instead of asking for help, we take extreme measures to execute responsibilities
that might not even be ours.
- Coping with Problems
- How we cope with problems is a choice. When we choose our coping style, we help determine our ability
to address the problems we face. Of eight styles we can identify, only one is universally constructive,
and we rarely use it.
- Begging the Question
- Begging the question is a common, usually undetected, rhetorical fallacy. It leads to unsupported conclusions
and painful places we just can't live with. What can we do when it happens?
- The Problem of Work Life Balance
- When we consider the problem of work life balance, we're at a disadvantage from the start. The term
itself is part of the problem.
- Patterns of Conflict Escalation: I
- Toxic workplace conflicts often begin as simple disagreements. Many then evolve into intensely toxic
conflict following recognizable patterns.
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.