If you really wanted a promotion, you would work off the clock.
“If you really wanted a promotion…”
“If you really want to keep your job…”
“If you really cared about your career…”
“If you really wanted a work visa…”
“If you really loved me…”
The general format for this verbal attack is: If you really [X], then you would/wouldn’t [Y].
Anytime you hear this sentence you should consider your image under attack, especially if the person places extra stress on the world really.
What does this verbal attack mean?
“If you really cared about your job, you would do your paperwork correctly.”
In the above example the insinuations are:
- You don’t care about your job, therefore:
- Your paperwork is consistently done incorrectly, therefore:
- You’re lazy, aren’t very professional, and possibly incompetent.
- You make everyone believe you care about your job, but you don’t. You’re a hypocrite.
Identify & respond to the presupposition(s), not the bait.
But where do you even begin in defending yourself against such a loaded accusation? First you need to break the accusation down into parts.
“If you really [X], then you would/wouldn’t [Y].”
This verbal attack is comprised of two elements:
1.) the presupposition [X]. A presupposition is an implicit and universally accepted assumption which is assumed to be true for a sentence to make sense.
2.) the bait [Y]. The bait is the distraction your attacker is using to take your attention away from the presupposition [X].
In the example:
“If you really wanted a promotion, you wouldn’t mind working off the clock.”,
the presupposition is that [X] “you don’t want a promotion”, and the bait is that [Y] “you don’t want to work off the clock.”
While working off the clock is illegal and your boss cannot force you do to it, working off the clock might put you in good light with management who might reward your sacrifice with a promotion. However working off the clock is no guarantee you will be promoted, and your refusal to work off the clock is no indication that you don’t want to progress within the company.
But, your boss has tried to manipulate you into working off the clock by dangling the hopes of promotion, and you must respond. But how?
The main rule in any verbal attack is to ignore the bait [Y] and respond to the presupposition [X]. As tempting as responding to the bait is, if you respond to the accusation that your paperwork is never done correctly [Y], then you’re implicitly accepting the accusation that you don’t care about your job [X]. If you respond to the accusation that your paperwork is never done correctly, you’ve already lost the fight, admitting by default that you don’t care about your job.
The wrong way to handle this verbal attack :
In the above example, instead of addressing the prinicpal accusation - that the employee doesn’t care about his job - he fell for the bait and tried to defend himself against the accusation that he wasn’t keeping his client’s happy.
In doing so, h’s already lost the argument, and his boss now has a bad image of the employee and will start keeping an eye on him. In addition, as true as it may have been, the employee accused Mr. JONES of not forwarding the complaints, and at this point the boss won’t care - it’s the employee who is in trouble, not Mr. JONES. Factoring in office politics, if rumour gets out that the employee tried to blame the unhappy client on Mr. JONES, his colleages will begin to view him as untrustworthy.
“Remember the last time Mark’s clients complained? He tried to blame it on Mr. JONES. I wonder who he’s going to blame his next mistake on…”
Let this happen enough times, and your boss (and your colleagues) will only see the bad things you do around the office. Once your boss starts believing you don’t care about your job, it’s only a matter of time before you find yourself looking for a new one.
The right way to handle this verbal attack :
Because you didn’t allow your boss to manipulate you, this situation turned out much differently, you weren’t left having to apologize for something you weren’t responsable for, and your boss will have a better image of you because of it; an image which will work to your advantage in the long run.
The three different types of responses:
The example above included one good way of neutralizing the harmful presupposition. But there are other ways to address the accusation, depending on your relationship with the person.
“If you really wanted a promotion, you would spend less time with Mr. JONES.”
A1: “When did you start thinking I didn’t want a promotion?”
A2: “It’s interesting that people think Mr. JONES isn’t a good source of information.”
A3: “I do want a promotion.”
A1 forces your attacker to list examples. If they have no examples, then their accusation is void. If they have an example, you may be able to correct any misunderstandings.
A2 answers with a generalisation that takes the conversation on a completely different and neutral path. You are now having a discussion about Mr. JONES reputation, not your promotion.
A3 ignores the bait completely and directly attacks the negative presupposition.
Finally, separate the attacker from the attack.
It is possible that the person using this verbal attack on you may honestly not be aware that s/he is doing so. It may be a bad habit picked up from somebody who verbally abused him/her in this manner. Depending on your working relationship, you may be able to point out this problem and stop it from eating away at your relationship, or you may have to keep standing up against it until the person realizes the error of his/her ways.
Sources:
Test. How would you respond to the following accusations?
“If you really wanted a promotion, you wouldn’t mind working on the weekends.”
“If you really want to keep your job, you stop wasting so much printer paper.”
“If you really wanted a work visa, you’d learn how to speak the language.”
“If you really loved me, ”you wouldn’t spend so much time at work.”
