12: Threatening
Threatening is the most primitive form of influence - and in spite of propaganda to the contrary, it is very often used even in the present day. People will generally not threaten others with physical violence, but threats are made against a person's financial security, social standing, and other things on a daily basis. The boss who constantly speaks of firing people, writing them up, making disparaging comments in performance reviews, suggesting failure to obey "might not be good for your career," and similar behavior is threatening his employees.
Intimidation was mentioned in the last chapter, and threats can certainly be a means of intimidation - but the difference is that a threat is explicit: a person is made to understand what they must do and what the consequences will be if they fail to do so. Threats can sometimes be vague - a specific action and a specific consequence may not be named, though it's generally believed by the person who is doing the threatening that his victim understands exactly what he means.
Also, it is not possible to passively threaten someone. A powerful person may cause others to feel intimidated even if he does not intend to do so - those who are intimidated "feel" intimidated. However, threatening is always an intentional action. It cannot be passive or accidental - however, it may be something that a person does casually, without realizing that he is making a threat (EN: though this is often the defense of someone who made an intentional threat and was called on it).
Threats are used in the same manner as (intentional) intimidation: they are meant to gain immediate compliance without question or hesitation by evoking the emotion of fear. Likewise, threats do not offer a reward for cooperation but indicate a punishment for non-compliance. Specifically, a threat communicates an extrinsic punishment, not the natural consequence of neglect. "If you fail to brush your teeth, you will get cavities" is not a threat, but a logical argument. "If you fail to brush your teeth, you will get a spanking" is a threat.
As with other unethical forms of influence, the threat can be effective in the short run (getting immediate compliance) but is ultimately damaging in the long run (the other party will seek to avoid any future interaction and those who hear of the incident will also avoid a person who uses threats). Often, people will use threat because they are unskilled in other forms of persuasion, or because they wish to get compliance quickly without investing sufficient time or resources in a more appropriate form of persuasion.
People who use threats overtly generally do not last long in most organizations - it is widely recognized as an unethical practice - though there are some toxic cultures in which threatening is a common practice. Most often, people who use threats attempt to be covert about it: their threats are vague, no specific punishment is named, and there is very often little personal involvement (the punishment is something that will somehow happen, not something "I" will do to "you.") Overt threats are occasionally used by people in roles of formal authority (managers) as a last resort.
Avoid Threatening
While few people use direct and heinous threats against others, most people will resort to threatening others occasionally. This often occurs out of frustration, when the stakes are high and/or other methods of persuasion have failed. In some corporate cultures, managers are given specific direction for the use of threats in disciplining employees.
It's important to recognize that threats are damaging - they decrease morale and weaken or destroy relationships, even when the person who uses threats is authorized to do so. Ideally, they would never be used at all - but more practically, they should very rarely be used, and then only in extreme situations.
Defense Against Threats
How to react to a threat depends largely on who is doing the threatening and how serious the consequences would be. Some basic tips:
- Be aware that a threat is sometimes an attempt to evoke an emotional response, to befuddle you and get you to stop thinking, to provoke a counterattack that can then be held against you, or as a method of reverse-psychology. Keep your composure.
- Calling attention to the behavior is generally effective in discouraging it. People generally know that threats are unacceptable in most situations, and simply by asking a person "did you just threaten me?" will cause them to reconsider their behavior.
- When you believe a threat to be a bluff (the person lacks the ability or genuine intent to act), then it can be called. It may be wise to take action to reduce the damage that would be done should they act upon their threat.
- If you wish to preserve the relationship, approach a threatening person privately, at a time when they are more approachable, about their behavior. The threat may have been an emotional outburst on their part, and they will apologize and make amends when they are less agitated.
- In most organizations, threatening behavior is not tolerated, and there is a defined method of escalation: you can speak to the person's supervisor, the human resources department, etc. to get support: they should discourage the behavior and defend you against retaliation.
- If the culture of your department or organization tolerates threats, it may be best simply to leave. Tolerance for hostility is a symptom of a toxic environment where there are likely many other problems.
- Replying to a threat with a threat of your own is sometimes effective because people do to others what works best on them. This is most effective when you can harm them more than they can harm you, and when you have the power to act upon your threat (particularly against a bluff). However, this should be a measured response and not a knee-jerk reaction.
- Where you feel that you cannot repel a threat but still do not wish to comply, consider the consequences. In some cases the damage done for refusing to comply is less than the cost of compliance.