At the beginning of December, someone anonymously sent me a text for editing; I rewrote it beyond recognition, and now it is posted in the public channel Deterrence Doctrine. I didn’t publish it here, but recently in my cozy chat, a long argument broke out due to some vague disputes at a Moscow New Year’s party for decision-makers, and so, I remembered it, which is why I’m posting the text here.
You are being bullied in the workplace—how do you solve the problem? If you don’t intend to run away or kill everyone secretly, then you need to develop a deterrence doctrine—that is, establish a line of behavior that makes the pleasure the group gets from bullying you less than the potential costs of doing so.
The clearest and most powerful measure that avoids open warfare is to gather compromising material on everyone who bullies you, store it in a secure location that allows for quick publication, and then casually let the bullies see samples of the material. From then on, they will hate you exclusively in secret, but will communicate with you in a pointedly neutral manner. In terms of implementation complexity, this is roughly as if you were a state creating a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying each of your potential adversaries.
Making acquaintances with some tough guys from the outside is also a decent measure; however, this will require some communication skills, not just the ability to work with information. In this scenario, they might still huff in your direction, but they will try to keep your irritation below the radar: after all, you are unlikely to incite your support group to step in for you over trivialities. In terms of complexity, this is as if you were a state joining NATO.
The most reliable way is, of course, to bulk up, get experience in sparring, overcome the natural omega-like inability to strike first, and then, in response to another episode of bullying, address the participant who seems like a manageable opponent: something like, “You’re only brave when you’re in a pack, or are you too chicken to go one-on-one?” Essentially, it doesn’t matter who wins the ensuing fight; what matters is that it happens at all, one-on-one, and that you manage to demonstrate a sufficient level of resilience. If you cause significant damage to your opponent, all the better. In terms of complexity, this is as if you were Finland and the Soviet Union was bullying you. Finland, as a reminder, turned out to be the only country that, despite losing to the USSR as a result of World War II, maintained its relative independence, and was actually reckoned with because dealing with this little psycho was more trouble than it was worth.
And finally, if you’re too scared to fight honestly, but the hatred is building and you don’t want to pursue a career as the Joker, then buy some pepper spray, ambush one of the harassers, spray them in the eyes, knock them down, and kick them. Then inform all the others that they can, of course, kill you, but if they don’t and simply continue their bullying, you will get to every single one of them. This is as if you were a country training terrorists, and there were no USA in the world, only the EU.
The general line of thinking is roughly this: you need to demonstrate that you are prepared to exert significant effort and incur significant costs to rid yourself of the bullying, and that you have no intention of simply enduring it and crying into your pillow.
But the best thing is simply to stop being an omega. You won’t be bullied not only if people fear the consequences, but also if you are simply likable and useful to the members of the collective. This is as if you were Japan, exporting anime and Toyota.
