A short guide to white-collar warfare
How office rows escalate
MILITARY types are familiar with the idea of gradually ratcheting up the intensity of a conflict. Herman Kahn, an American nuclear strategist of the 1960s, identified no fewer than 44 rungs on the escalation ladder. The lower rungs on Kahn’s ladder include things like “Solemn and Formal Declarations”; the topmost is called “Spasm”, which doesn’t sound good at all.
Escalation in the office follows a similar logic: More and more damage is threatened or inflicted until someone backs down or suffers Termination. The initial rungs that workers climb towards white-collar warfare are not codified. But they bear a clear resemblance to some of the steps that Kahn identified when he thought about conflict among states.
1. Point of difference. This could be anything: a battle over resources, an argument over strategy or suspicion over a missing phone charger.
But for these purposes, imagine that you have twice asked a colleague in another department to write a report on something, and not received an answer. You strongly suspect that they regard the report as a complete waste of their time.
2. Formal language. The first escalatory step is the use of more formal language to make your request again. You use the word “Dear” at the start of your e-mail, instead of your customary “Hi”. You thank them in advance for their help, the “in advance” underlining how little has happened already. You “look forward to receiving the report”, which is a complete lie.
You are no longer making a friendly request of a colleague. You have become distant, ambassadorial; you can imagine yourself in a sash.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
3. Weirdly formal language. If no response is forthcoming, you suddenly start using phrases that never pass your lips in real life. You say “with regard to” and lob in an “aforementioned”.
“As per my last e-mail” is the clearest sign of trouble ahead. No one ever speaks the words “as per”; it’s only slightly less archaic than saying “prithee” or “doth”. In the office, this kind of formulation is fighting talk. You are now testing the enemy’s willingness to engage.
4. Hardening of positions. Your adversary responds with some exaggerated politeness of their own, explaining why there is no need for them to produce a report. You spot the words “hereby” and “appertaining”, and realise they have escalated to match you.
At around this point, one or both of you blind-copies your boss into this increasingly Dickensian correspondence. This is not strictly speaking an escalation, because it is not visible to the adversary.
But it is not a step to take lightly. For one thing, no one really knows how bcc works, so quite a lot of time has to be spent researching who can see a reply from a bcc’ed recipient. For another, it means that forces are now being enlisted on your behalf if conflict does erupt.
5. Show of force. With no sign of the report, and increasingly baroque language now peppering your correspondence, it’s time to show your willingness to cause real damage. You cc your own boss on your next e-mail.
This is the office equivalent of a military parade, the awesome might of your departmental head displayed as a warning. The message you are sending could not be clearer: You’re not an individual but a representative of a great power.
6. Even greater show of force. Your enemy responds, and you can see that their boss has been cc’ed. So far, so predictable. But then, shockingly, you notice that their boss’s boss has also been copied. Their military parade is twice the size of yours!
Your adversary understands the idea of escalation dominance, and the stakes have become dangerously high. You could continue to ask for the damned report, but what was once a localised conflict is threatening to become a general war.
7. Breaking off relations. The fight over the report has reached a stalemate. Your own boss is asking why you need it, and by this stage you cannot really remember yourself. Your opponent has clearly not only read von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, but seems to have had extensive military training.
You cannot escalate further without copying the chief executive into the e-mail or making a formal complaint to HR, but neither seems likely to end well. You send a private e-mail to your opponent to say that you regret their lack of cooperation and will be asking another colleague for assistance instead. They have won this battle but you have not climbed all the way down the ladder. The conflict is frozen, not over. ©2025 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved
Copyright SPH Media. All rights reserved.
