jim.shamlin.com

11: Intimidating

Most forms of influence are appealing to the other party because they are led to believe they have something to gain by cooperating or obeying - but if they choose not to comply, then they simply forego getting the reward. Intimidation, on the other hand, offers nothing - but instead implies that the other party will suffer negative consequences if they fail to comply.

The difference between intimidation and threat (which is mentioned in the next chapter) is in the way in which the threat is communicated. A threat is overt and direct - if you fail to do as I ask, I will inflict a specific harm upon you. Intimidation is more subtle - harm will come to you. The intimidator is not stating that he will personally inflict the harm, nor being specific about what that harm will be.

Intimidation also tends to be an ongoing campaign of dominance and control. A person will use a threat to gain compliance for a specific thing, but use intimidation to have ongoing influence over another person or group of people - the (implied) threat is never removed, but remains in place to back any demand they may wish to make in future. As an influence tactic, intimidation works in a similar manner as authority: a person wants to convince others that he is in a position where he must be obeyed without question.

As a tactic, intimidation is as old as religion - and in fact, the basis of most religions is intimidation: fear of retaliation from a supernatural being makes people complaint to the demands of a person who represents that person.

How Intimidation Influences

There is a brief mention of "passive intimidation" in which a person does not mean to intimidate others, but because of their role or persona, others feel intimidated by them. An executive is often intimidating to others, even if he does not intend to be. In fact, the executive's secretary may be intimidating because people are aware that she has the ability to influence the executive. A politician or police officer is intimidating just because of his role. A star athlete or championship team is intimidating to its opponents by virtue of its past performance. A good performer intimidates the less talented one who has to "follow" him onstage and the smart students intimidate the slower learners. Very often, such people consciously capitalize on their intimidating qualities - but even when they wish to abdicate them, they cannot: people feel intimidated even if they try not to be intimidating.

Active intimidation is quite different: it is a conscious attempt to exert control over others by intimidating them.

Methods of Intimidation

A few examples are given of intimidating behavior:

The most primitive form of intimidation involves causing the other person to fear that they will suffer physical harm - but you can also threaten other things that people value: their financial security, their personal credibility and esteem, their social standing in a group, etc.

The methods and mechanism of intimidation varies according to what is being threatened: the intimidator must be (or make the other person believe they are) capable of inflicting a given kind of harm

Defending Against Intimidation

The primary defense against intimidation is to remain calm and rational. Intimidation works best when the victim allows his fear to get the better of him and comply without thinking. If you allow yourself to be panicked by a threat, you will be unable to activate any other line of defense.

Posturing is a very effective defense against intimidation: the other person feels intimidation is the easiest way to influence someone, and will often stop trying to use it if it doesn't achieve quick success. That is, they push other people around only because others are willing to let them, and they are not prepared to encounter resistance. When they encounter resistance, they switch to a different tactic.

Another defense is to switch the tactic for them. When someone attempts to intimidate you, ask them for the reason you should comply so that they have to justify their case logically and consider your interests - either that, or they must upgrade from vague intimidation to an overt threat, which can be dealt with more directly (see the next chapter).

Another defense is simply to call the bluff - to refuse to comply. This can be dangerous if the intimidator actually has the power and the will to use it, but in many cases they are not. You should carefully consider the risk before calling a bluff.

A final defense is counter-intimidation. People use tactics on others that are generally effective against themselves. Consider the playground bully who routinely threatens harm to others, but cowers from a fight against an opponent who can beat him. However, before using this tactic be sure that you can back the threat: you have to have a strong hand to defeat a bluff.