Classifying threats helps us evaluate our possible choices of responses. In Part I of this little catalog of threat types, we looked at the Nonviolent Physical threat and No-Dessert-For-You — the implied withdrawal of desirable privileges or resources. The former is a direct threat; the latter is more indirect.
A direct threat is "uncloaked." It's delivered personally, without apology or qualification, and with emotional force. An indirect threat is dressed up or disguised in some way so as to insulate the threatener from any consequences of having issued a threat. Direct threats expressly or implicitly suggest harm to the target. For instance, "If you don't think you can get this done, we'll find someone who can."
In everyday conversation, we sometimes use the term threat as if it meant empty threat. That is, we think of threats as risks that are unlikely to materialize. We say, "The sky looks threatening, but I don't think it will actually rain." In this discussion, threat means something more. It?s an expression of intent to harm, and it is to be taken seriously.
A threat's degree of directness can be a valuable guide for choosing a response, because it can indicate the state of mind of the threatener. Directness can also reveal how vulnerable or powerful threateners feel, or how clever, or how resourceful they are. Most important, the directness of a threat can suggest how the threatener might respond to your response.
Here are some suggestions for dealing with direct threats.
The effectiveness of threats derives in part from fear, but direct threats rely on fear almost entirely. In a state of fear, the target is less likely to think clearly, and more likely to react reflexively. Users of direct threats seek precisely this advantage, and they're probably unaccustomed to dealing with — or lack the skill to deal with — those who are unafraid.
A threat's degree of
directness can be a
valuable guide for
choosing a responseYet, those who threaten directly aren't afraid of being caught using threats. That this feeling of invulnerability might be delusional makes no difference to targets — the threats will sting just the same.
Challenging direct threats directly is unlikely to succeed. If the threatener actually is invulnerable, direct challenges will likely fail. And even if the threatener is bluffing, he or she probably won't back down, because retreat would render future threats ineffective.
If you know that you work for someone who uses direct threats, prepare yourself. Don't wait for further direct threats to materialize. Be ready to resign your position at any time. Preparedness liberates you — it takes the sting out of threats. And if you start searching for a new job, you just might find something better.
In the next part of this series on threats, we'll examine indirect threats. That's a promise. First in this series Next in this series Top Next Issue
Is a workplace bully targeting you? Do you know what to do to end the bullying? Workplace bullying is so widespread that a 2014 survey indicated that 27% of American workers have experienced bullying firsthand, that 21% have witnessed it, and that 72% are aware that bullying happens. Yet, there are few laws to protect workers from bullies, and bullying is not a crime in most jurisdictions. 101 Tips for Targets of Workplace Bullies is filled with the insights targets of bullying need to find a way to survive, and then to finally end the bullying. Also available at Apple's iTunes store! Just . Order Now!
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.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.
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 Workplace Bullying:
- Intimidation Tactics: Touching
- Workplace touching can be friendly, or it can be dangerous and intimidating. When touching is used to
intimidate, it often works, because intimidators know how to select their targets. If you're targeted,
what can you do?
- So You Want the Bullying to End: II
- If you're the target of a workplace bully, ending the bullying can be an elusive goal. Here are some
guidelines for tactics to bring it to a close.
- Look Where You Aren't Looking
- Being blindsided by an adverse event could indicate the event's sudden, unexpected development. It can
also indicate a failure to anticipate what could have been reasonably anticipated. How can we improve
our ability to prepare for adverse events?
- Manipulators Beware
- When manipulators try to manipulate others, they're attempting to unscrupulously influence their targets
to decide or act in some way the manipulators prefer. But some targets manage to outwit their manipulators.
- Gaslighting Project Teams
- To gaslight people is to convince them to reject their own observations and believe what you want them
to believe. Gaslighting corrupts project management as surely as it destroys romantic relationships.
Here are some early indicators of gaslighting.
See also Workplace Bullying, Conflict Management and Emotions at Work for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming April 3: Recapping Factioned Meetings
- A factioned meeting is one in which participants identify more closely with their factions, rather than with the meeting as a whole. Agreements reached in such meetings are at risk of instability as participants maneuver for advantage after the meeting. Available here and by RSS on April 3.
- And on April 10: Managing Dunning-Kruger Risk
- A cognitive bias called the Dunning-Kruger Effect can create risk for organizational missions that require expertise beyond the range of knowledge and experience of decision-makers. They might misjudge the organization's capacity to execute the mission successfully. They might even be unaware of the risk of so misjudging. Available here and by RSS on April 10.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.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
Follow Rick
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed
Beware any resource that speaks of "winning" at workplace politics or "defeating" it. You can benefit or not, but there is no score-keeping, and it isn't a game.
- Wikipedia has a nice article with a list of additional resources
- Some public libraries offer collections. Here's an example from Saskatoon.
- Check my own links collection
- LinkedIn's Office Politics discussion group