Even When an Extreme Response Is Justified, Retaliation Is Judged More Harshly
Some leaders react, while other leaders retaliate. There’s a difference.
Any time a leader reacts to “get even,” to “settle the score,” or to repay a perceived injustice, they are being retaliatory. Here’s the surprising fact: In all walks of life, the retaliator and not the offender commonly garners the negative press.
This is true even when the offender deserves it. A leader who “takes the bait” and retaliates against an insult, offensive or subversive behavior, or a challenge to their authority instantly becomes the focus of negative attention and disfavor.
When it comes to leaders, people judge retaliation much harsher than they do the offense. Whereas a thoughtful response can demonstrate emotional maturity, a retaliatory one is viewed as an emotional reaction, unbecoming of a leader.
In fact, retaliation, especially by a leader, is commonly viewed as excessive, unwarranted, petty, vengeful, and emotionally immature, irrespective of the transgression.
Even in the case of bullying, the victim who fights back is often blamed for unnecessary escalation of the conflict. Who is the aggressor and who is the victim often becomes blurred, depending on the extremity of the actions involved.
Because retaliation can trigger a vicious cycle of reaction and counter-reaction that escalates a conflict instead of resolving it, the retaliator is typically seen as the party responsible for extending the conflict.
Retaliation that is planned rather than spontaneous can draw even more attention and derision from parties outside of the conflict. The idea of “getting even” is typically viewed as unethical, unnecessary, and childish.
When it is planned or strategic, it is often viewed as cold, cruel, and mean-spirited. This further lessens the negative judgment of the precipitating offense and places all the focus on the retaliator.
The only exception to this rule occurs when retaliation is viewed as a sacrifice or a protection for others. Then the retaliator is given a pass. Otherwise, the takeaway is clear. Leaders cannot be seen as retaliating, ever.
Retaliation by a leader is considered much more than bad form. It is likely to be viewed as an extreme reaction by a treacherous leader with an intentional desire to punish a person who can’t punish them back. Good leaders respond thoughtfully and do their best not to react.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t direct and candid about their feelings. And if they do react, they ensure their actions and decisions are backed by objective reasons that carry no hint of unfairness or striking back.
Retaliation is barbed wire, and it is exceedingly hard to get yourself untangled from it once it is perceived to occur. Payback may be hell, but most times it impacts the retaliator more than the offender.
Life for leaders is not always fair, but you knew that.
