A short guide to white-collar warfare
How office rows escalate
Illustration of a businessman with a military helmet looking through binoculars /bɪˈnɑːkjələrz/ in a desolate bomb marked landscape
row /raʊ/
(informal, especially BrE)
1. [C] ~ (about / over sth) a serious disagreement between people, organizations, etc. about sth
eg. A row has broken out over education.
2. [C] a noisy argument between two or more people
SYN is quarrel :
eg. She left him after a blazing row.
eg. family rows
eg. He had a row with his son.
3. [sing.] a loud unpleasant noise
SYN is din , racket :
eg. Who's making that row?
binoculars /bɪˈnɑːkjələrz/
[pl.]
an instrument, like two small telescopes fixed together, that makes objects that are far away seem nearer when you look through it
eg. a pair of binoculars
eg. We looked at the birds through binoculars.
eg. You'll notice in the upper right-hand corner, there is a new binoculars button.
binocular
(technical ) using two eyes to see
eg. binocular vision
eg. We know that animals with binocular vision today are hunters.
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 /ˈsɑːləm/ 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 email, 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 /æm,bæsə'dɔ:riəl/; you can imagine yourself in a sash.
sash
1. a long strip of cloth worn around the waist or over six shoulder, especially as part of a uniform; a long strip or loop of cloth worn over one shoulder or around the waist, especially as part of a uniform or official dress.
eg. Lee arrived first, wearing full dress uniform, with a sash and a presentation sword.
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 email” is the clearest sign of trouble ahead. No one ever speaks the words “as per”; it’s only slightly less archaic than saying “prithee” /'prɪði/ or “doth”. In the office, this kind of formulation is fighting talk. You are now testing the enemy’s willingness to engage.(In the absence of a response, one may unexpectedly begin to employ expressions that are rarely uttered in everyday conversation. For instance, one might utter "with regard to" or introduce an "aforementioned." The phrase "as per my last email" serves as a clear indicator of impending issues. It is noteworthy that no one typically articulates the words "as per"; this expression is only marginally less antiquated than using terms like "prithee" or "doth". Within a professional setting, such language can be perceived as confrontational. You are effectively gauging the opponent's readiness to engage.)
lob
(informal) to throw sth so that it goes quite high through the air
eg. Stones were lobbed over the wall.
to throw something
throw
to send sth from your hand through the air by moving your hand or arm quickly
eg. The kids were outside throwing snowballs at each other.
eg. Stop throwing stones at the window!
toss
to throw sth lightly or carelessly
eg. She tossed the keys into her bag and went out.
eg. He tossed the book aside and got up.
chuck
to throw sth carelessly or without much thought
eg. He read the letter and chucked it into the bin.
eg. He chucked the paper in a drawer.
fling
to throw sb / sth somewhere with force, especially because you are angry
eg. He crumpled up the letter and flung it into the fire.
eg. The door was suddenly flung open.
eg. Someone had flung a brick through the window.
eg. He flung her to the ground.
hurl
to throw sth / sb violently in a particular direction
eg. In a fit of temper he hurled the book across the room.
eg. He hurled a brick through the window.
lob
eg. The boys spent an hour lobbing stones into the lake.
prithee /'prɪði:/
(old use)
used when asking sb politely to do sth
eg. Prithee, come with me.
doth /dʌθ/ /dəθ/
in the past, the third person singular of the present tense of "do"; an archaic third-person singular present tense of the verb "do," used mainly in old English (e.g., Shakespearean texts). It functions exactly like "does" in modern English but is no longer used in everyday speech or writing.
eg. he/she/it doth (= he/she/it does)
eg. He doth protest too much. (modern: "He does protest too much.")
eg. What doth it mean? (modern: "What does it mean?")
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.
hereby
(in legal documents, etc. ) as a result of this statement, and in a way that makes sth legal
eg. He's hereby declared winner and is returned elected.
▪ apper'tain to sb / sth
(formal) to belong or refer to sb / sth
eg. rights appertaining to the property
eg. These figures appertain to last year's sales.
At around this point, one or both of you blind-copies(v.) 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.(At this juncture, either one or both parties may choose to blind-copy their superior into this correspondence, which is becoming increasingly reminiscent of a Dickens novel. While this action does not constitute a formal escalation, as it remains unseen by the opposing party, it is nonetheless a decision that should be approached with caution.) 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 /bə'rok/ language now peppering your correspondence, it’s time to show your willingness to cause real damage. You cc your own boss on your next email. 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.
baroque /bə'rok/
[usually before noun]
used to describe European architecture , art and music of the 17th and early 18th centuries that has a grand and highly decorated style
eg. baroque churches / music
eg. the baroque period
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 email or making a formal complaint to HR, but neither seems likely to end well. You send a private email to your opponent to say that you regret their lack of co-operation 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.■
1. [U, C, usually sing.] a disagreement or a situation in a competition in which neither side is able to win or make any progress
SYN is impasse :
eg. The talks ended in (a) stalemate.
abbreviations
cc carbon copy
bcc or bc blind carbon copy or blind copy
At around this point, one or both of you blind-copies(v.) your boss into this increasingly Dickensian correspondence.
I suspect that this statement appears to contravene the proximity rule, as "both of you" seems to be nearer to the verb than "one of you". Therefore, the plural form of the verb should be employed rather than the singular form.
This phrase presents two options: "one [person/thing]" (singular) or "both [people/things]" (plural). The key to verb agreement here depends on which part of the phrase is treated as the "primary subject".
In standard English, when the phrase starts with "one" (singular), the verb usually agrees with "one"—even though "both" is plural and closer to the verb. This is because "one" is the initial, more emphasised subject, and "both" acts as an optional add-on.
That is to say, one, or both, of you blind-copies(v.) your boss...
Adding that mental comma helps clarify how "or both of you" acts as an extra detail, not the main focus.
The key here is that the sentence emphasises "one" first (the minimum scenario: at least one person does it), and "both" is just a possible extra. That’s why even with the comma, the verb still sticks to agreeing with "one" (singular), since "one" is the heart of the subject. This punctuation makes the "or both" part function as a parenthetical element—a side note that adds extra information (about the second possible subject) but doesn’t change the core subject. The core subject remains "one" (singular), so the verb still agrees with it. No matter if you use commas, parentheses/pə'rɛnθəsi;z/, or nothing (the original phrasing), the rule holds: the verb follows the core, emphasised subject ("one") instead of the parenthetical "both".
Why This Isn’t a "Proximity Rule" Exception? (Clarification)
The earlier mix-up or confusion was framing it as a "proximity" issue, but it’s actually about emphasis and sentence structure. When "one" comes first, the sentence focuses on "at least one (and possibly two)"—so the verb defaults to the singular "one" to match that core idea.
eg. The one or two extra wet winters is not going to solve this crisis?
eg. One or both of the files needs editing.
eg. Before the 3 PM check-in, one or three of you sends a quick update on the task progress to the group chat.
eg. By Friday, one or two of you completes the feedback forms for the new project tool.
eg. If the client calls with questions, one or four of you answers—just make sure to note the key points in the shared log.
