Grace Under Fire: IV

When someone intends to inflict intense fear, anxiety, or stress on another at work, one set of available strategies involves condescension, humiliation, and lies. Repeated attacks can wear on a person, but targets have a better chance of withstanding these assaults and maintaining composure if they recognize the pattern and the tactics. In that spirit, here are descriptions of three tactics abusers employ to wear down their targets. As in Part III of this series, I use the name Alpha for the abuser and Theta for the target.

A condescending, imperious tone, or badgering and humiliation

Alpha's treatment of Theta might include condescension, an imperious tone, badgering, humiliation, or other forms of disrespect. These tactics are likely intended to generate anger and frustration on Theta's part. Theta might feel compelled to object to these tactics, but if Alpha has designed and executed them carefully, Theta would be unwise to register any kind of grievance or appear to be offended. Such responses by Theta would make Theta appear to others to be "thin-skinned," "argumentative," or "aggressive." Alpha might even claim, plausibly, that Theta's objections were evidence of gratuitous aggression against Alpha by Theta, intended to harm Alpha, who would claim to be innocent of any wrongdoing. This is a tactic I call "reversing the victim."

Offenses of this kind occurring in email or text messages provide Theta with very little that can help in ending the abuse, because they're usually ambiguous enough to avoid capturing the abuser's tone. And often appreciating the power of these messages requires knowledge of context not present explicitly in the messages. That's why Invoking a company grievance procedure, or applying legal means, are strategies unlikely to succeed if they rely on these messages for evidence of abuse. However, recordings (audio or video) are another matter, because they do tend to accurately convey the abuse. Depending on the jurisdiction, making such recordings can be prohibited by law. And company policy might also forbid it. But if Theta can find a way to make recordings without legal risk and without violating company policy, recordings can be very useful in persuading Alpha to cease or in motivating company officials to take corrective action against Alpha.

False accusations

Alpha might Offenses involving condescension
or a disrespectful tone committed
in email or text messages provide
very little that can help in
ending the abuse, because
they're usually ambiguousaccuse Theta of having said things that Theta never said, or having done things that Theta never did. Or Alpha might accuse Theta of withholding information that Theta didn't withhold, or failing to take actions that Theta did in fact take.

Targets can limit the availability of these tactics by creating evidence that they, the targets, did (or did not) take the actions that their abusers claim they did not (or did). Evidence need not meet high legal standards, though of course that would be best. The standard to meet is that the evidence be such as to deter the abuser from using this tactic. For example, to deter Alpha from claiming that Theta failed to report certain information, Theta can report it to Alpha — or even just mention it in passing — during a meeting before witnesses, or enter it into an appropriate tamper-proof, internal online medium with a substantial subscriber base. To exploit these deterrence strategies, targets would do well to become familiar with all channels and media in which they can report information.

Distorting the facts

Alpha might assert to Theta that Theta's performance is substandard or worse, providing "factual" claims to support these assertions. The claims might be complete fabrications, but if Alpha is sophisticated, the claims are unlikely to be total fiction, and more likely to be distorted versions of actual facts. If there are distortions, they're likely subjective distortions or judgments, or claims made about private exchanges that occurred without witnesses. For most third parties, identifying these assertions as distortions might require contextual information that Alpha cleverly omits from the assertions. That is, the assertions are of a kind for which objective refutation on the basis of hard data would be difficult. Alpha's intent is to leave Theta in a state of frustrated rage with little chance of defense against Alpha's outrageously distorted claims.

If Alpha is willing to make stuff up — to lie — presumably Alpha will choose to lie only in ways that don't expose Alpha to risk of being revealed as a liar. If Alpha uses this tactic, Theta would be wise to collect and track all the lies, because the collection might be useful someday in demonstrating a pattern of lying. Moreover, a complete record of Alpha's lies is likely to reveal inconsistencies and contradictions that Alpha cannot avoid, because keeping track of lies is a notoriously difficult exercise [Note 1]. But beyond that, Theta must recognize that it is no longer enough to be a good citizen and to meet all expectations, because Alpha can lie about Theta's performance, or anything else. Theta would be wise to prepare an exit from the situation, if possible.

If the power gap between the abuser and the target is stable or increasing — that is, if Alpha's position in the organization is much more secure than Theta's — Theta is unlikely to obtain any degree of justice from internal organizational procedures. And approaches based on legal protections tend to be successful only if the abuser has blatantly violated specifically applicable laws. Targets unfamiliar with these situations should seek assistance from a coach or adviser unaffiliated with the employer and familiar with the risks and costs that any approach to a resolution might entail. First in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

Footnotes

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.

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 Conflict Management:

Saying No

When we have to say "no" to customers or to people in power, we're often tempted to placate with a "yes." There's a better way: learn how to say "no" in a way that moves the group toward joint problem solving.

An Emergency Toolkit

You've just had some bad news at work, and you're angry or really upset. Maybe you feel like the target of a vicious insult or the victim of a serious injustice. You have work to do, and you want to respond, but you must first regain your composure. What can you do to calm down and start feeling better?

Political Framing: Communications

In organizational politics, one class of toxic tactics is framing — accusing a group or individual by offering interpretations of their actions to knowingly and falsely make them seem responsible for reprehensible or negligent acts. Here are some communications tactics framers use.

Recognizing Hurtful Dismissiveness

"Never mind" can mean anything from "Excuse me, I'm sorry," to, "You lame idiot, it's beyond you," and more. The former is apologetic and courteous. The latter is dismissive and hurtful. We have dozens of verbal tactics for hurting each other dismissively. How can we recognize them?

Compulsive Talkers at Work: Power

Compulsive talkers are unlikely to change their behavior in response to your polite (or even impolite) requests. In this second part of our exploration, we consider the role of power — both personal and organizational.

See also Conflict Management and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming June 7: Toxic Disrupters: Tactics

Some people tend to disrupt meetings. Their motives vary, but they use techniques drawn from a limited collection. Examples: they violate norms, demand attention, mess with the agenda, and sow distrust. Response begins with recognizing their tactics. Available here and by RSS on June 7.

And on June 14: Pseudo-Collaborations

Most workplace collaborations produce results of value. But some collaborations — pseudo-collaborations — are inherently incapable of producing value, due to performance management systems, or lack of authority, or lack of access to information. Available here and by RSS on June 14.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenHoWzUJVeioCfozEIner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.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