Don’t Humiliate An Opponent

At the end of every argument or debate, the “winning” side has a choice. Accept their win with humility and graciousness. Or go in for the kill shot by humiliating their opponent.

We’ve all been in heated disagreements where emotions ran high and we said something we soon regretted. Even though we may have “won” the argument, we still felt the need for some instant retribution by humiliating the other side. The immediate desire is overwhelming during a conflict.

But be careful how you proceed after victory. While it may feel good to humiliate the other side when they are at their weakest, you may create an enemy for life.

FBI Hostage Negotiator Gary Noesner, author of Stalling for Time: My Life as an FBI Hostage Negotiator, describes how General Grant handled his victory of General Lee at the end of the Civil War:

No one…wants to be humiliated. I was always moved by General Grant’s gesture to General Lee in allowing the Confederate leader to keep his sword during the surrender at Appomattox that ended the Civil War. That small but symbolic act cost Grant nothing, yet gained so much by allowing the venerated Lee to maintain his dignity and positively influence his loyal followers. Many of the individuals we deal with are hardly venerated warriors, but they are repeat offenders. If we treat them poorly when they surrender, they may not be so willing to cooperate with us the next time they’re in a jam.

General Grant’s demonstration is the gold standard on how to handle victory. Allowing the opponent to maintain dignity and self-respect doesn’t cost you anything.

Steven Sample, author of The Contrarian’s Guide to Leadership, reiterates the point by quoting Machiavelli:

Don’t humiliate an opponent unless you’re sure you are able, and want, to eliminate him altogether. Otherwise you’ll simply make an enemy for life.

Our relationships are ongoing. Think about the disagreements you have at work. If you humiliate a coworker today, you may have just created a permanent adversary. Are you willing to make an enemy for the rest of your career by overreacting in the moment?

We should always leave an out for the other side. Even when we prove our point, leave the other person the option to save face and graciously accept defeat.

Sun Tzu, writing in The Art of War, elaborates:

A surrounded army must be given a way out. The ancient rule of the charioteers says, “Surround them on three sides, leaving one side open, to show them a way to life. Show them a way to life so that they will not be in the mood to fight to the death…

When you box someone in and don’t give them an easy choice, be prepared for an irrational response. Make retreating an appealing and gracious path. When someone is cornered, they may give up. Or they may fight to the death. You won’t know until its too late.

For leaders, it’s the same principle. Praise in public, punish in private.

Former Lt. General Hal Moore, author of Hal Moore on Leadership: Winning When Outgunned and Outmanned, elaborates:

Praise in public; punish in private. As a leader, you should never resort to public humiliation when correcting a subordinate. It hurts unit cohesion and you may never regain that subordinate’s trust or respect. “If you need to take someone to the wood shed…do it in private.”

A leader should point out mistakes in public. But public humiliation? That should never happen, because you can convey the lessons without the humiliation. Humiliation doesn’t drive the point home any deeper than teaching with grace and humility.

What about on the streets? If someone gets in your face, do you get aggressive and threaten them back? Rory Miller explains the trade-off in his book, Scaling Force: Dynamic Decision Making Under Threat of Violence:

If you increase the humiliation, you increase the fear of social fallout. “Punk, if you don’t want to spend the night in the hospital, walk away.” That approach might work. Or it may force the other guy to save face by fighting. Or to hedge his bets by bringing friends or weapons (or both) into the situation.

Once again, the use of humiliation can backfire. If you want to use it, that’s your call. But know that someone might call your bluff.

Hal Moore sums up the lesson by quoting the great Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz:

No one starts a war — or rather, no one in his sense ought to do so — without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by the war and how he intends to conduct it.

Here’s the takeaway. Be careful with humiliation. If you think humiliation is the answer, you better know exactly what you are intending to achieve, as Clausewitz suggests. In almost all cases, there’s no use for humiliation. The future repercussions are far worse than the immediate benefits.