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? rbrenWUtnpTBANMuojBJQner@ChacnKJNqgOXGHIudvhJoCanyon.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:
- Dismissive Gestures: III
- Sometimes we use dismissive gestures to express disdain, to assert superior status, to exact revenge
or as tools of destructive conflict. And sometimes we use them by accident. They hurt personally, and
they harm the effectiveness of the organization. Here's Part III of a little catalog of dismissive gestures.
- Discussion Distractions: I
- Meetings could be far more productive, if only we could learn to recognize and prevent the distractions
that lead us off topic and into the woods. Here is Part I of a small catalog of distractions frequently
seen in meetings.
- Toxic Conflict in Virtual Teams: Minimizing Authority
- Toxic conflict in virtual teams is especially difficult to address, because we bring to it assumptions
about causes and remedies that we've acquired in our experience in co-located teams. In this Part II
of our exploration we examine how minimizing authority tends to convert ordinary creative conflict into
a toxic form.
- First Aid for Wounded Conversations
- Groups that meet regularly sometimes develop patterns of tense conversations that become obstacles to
forward progress. Here are some ideas for releasing the tension.
- Ethical Debate at Work: II
- Outcomes of debates at work sometimes favor one party, not only at the expense of the other or others,
but also at the expense of the organization. Here's Part II of a set of guidelines for steering debates
toward wise outcomes.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming March 21: Narcissistic Behavior at Work: III
- People who behave narcissistically tend to regard themselves as special. They systematically place their own interests and welfare ahead of anyone or anything else. In this part of the series we consider how this claimed specialness affects the organization and its people. Available here and by RSS on March 21.
- And on March 28: Narcissistic Behavior at Work: IV
- Narcissistic behavior at work is more damaging than rudeness or egotism. It leads to faulty decisions that compromise organizational missions. In this part of the series we examine the effects of constant demands for attention and admiration. Available here and by RSS on March 28.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenAwgSaipYfGAISTHrner@ChactjODwLyrOiuRPGiKoCanyon.com or (617) 491-6289, 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, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
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.