Dealing with Deniable Intimidation

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 nonverbal options

Targets usually consider only verbal responses, especially when aggressors choose email as the medium for attacks. While verbal responses are often useful, nonverbal 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.

Seeking deniability is a strategy that is most appealing to aggressors who feel weak. Targets who can keep that in mind are more likely to recognize their own power.  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 welcome

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.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

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.

Related articles

More articles on Emotions at Work:

When It Really Counts, Be Positive

When we express our ideas, we can usually choose between a positive construction and a negative one. We can advocate for one path, or against another. Even though these choices have nearly identical literal meanings, positive constructions are safer in tense situations.

Unintended Consequences

Sometimes, when we solve problems, the solutions create new problems that can be worse than the problems we solve. Why does this happen? How can we limit this effect?

The Injured Teammate: II

You're a team lead, and one of the team members is suddenly very ill or has been severely injured. How do you handle it? Here are some suggestions for breaking the news to the team.

Coercion by Presupposition

Coercion, physical or psychological, has no place in the workplace. Yet we see it and experience it frequently. We can end the use of presupposition as a tool of coercion, but only if we take personal responsibility for ending it.

Face-Off Negotiations

In difficult face-to-face negotiations — or any face-to-face negotiations — seating arrangements do matter. Here's an exploration of one common seating pattern.

See also Emotions at Work and Emotions at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info