Divide and Conquer

Signs it might be this

• Each person has heard something about the other that the other swears they never said.
• Several people are told they are the only ones trusted with certain information.
• Attempts to talk to each other are discouraged, or one person stays the only channel.
• The conflict eases or vanishes once the people involved compare notes directly.
• Alliances between two people tend to cool soon after they form.

Signs it is probably something else

• When you compare accounts, the stories match.
• Information about everyone is shared freely, in groups.
• The person relaying information stops once corrected.
• The two people have had a conflict of their own for some time.
• The distance followed life changes, such as a move or a new job.
• The go-between welcomes a three-way conversation when asked.
• The distance between the people predates the go-between’s involvement.

Questions to ask yourself

• Have the two of us ever checked directly with each other about what was said?
• Is one person the only source of what each of us supposedly said?
• Are we each being told we are special or trusted, in a way the others do not know?
• Does the tension fall when we talk directly?
• Would the story change if the third person were not part of it?

What it is

Divide and Conquer is a pattern where people who could back each other up are kept apart. It often runs on selective retelling: one person hears a sharpened version of what the other said, and the other hears the reverse.

It can also look like private favors or secrets that make each person feel they alone hold a special place. One garbled message means little.

The pattern is that gaps keep opening between the same people who might compare notes. This does not show what anyone meant.

Why it matters

Two people who might have compared notes stop speaking, and each carries a version of the other that neither gets the chance to correct. Meanwhile no one is in a position to say that something is wrong, because each person is dealing with it alone.

How it shows up

• Relaying what each person said to the other in trimmed, sharpened or invented form.
• Privately telling several people that each is the one trusted or the one who really understands.
• Handling people one at a time so no one sees how everyone else is treated.
• Discouraging joint conversations with lines such as ‘no need to bring everyone in.’
• Seen in families, teams, friend groups, congregations and between co-parents and their children.

What you can do

Pick what fits. You do not owe anyone a confrontation.

Words you could use

“If something about me needs saying, please let me hear it from the person who said it. Can the three of us sit down together, or agree that anything about each other gets checked with each other first?”

Ask about it gently

Check directly with the other person, in neutral words: ‘I heard you said this about me, and I’d rather ask you than assume. Did you?’

Set a clear limit

Decline to carry or accept messages: ‘I’d rather hear that from her directly. Can the three of us talk?’

Step back

Stop trading secondhand reports about other people. Take a report at face value only after you have checked it with the person it concerns.

Get support

Tell two or three people the same account in the same words and ask what they have heard. Consistency across several mouths is a better check than one retelling.

At work, school or with services

At work, ask for decisions and feedback to be shared in writing or in a group. Compare the instructions you each received before acting.

Using this label fairly

• Calling every misunderstanding between friends ‘divide and conquer’ can turn clumsy relaying into a conspiracy story. It can cost you a friendship that could be repaired.
• The label can also be used to cast a person’s honest report of what they heard as a campaign.

How it differs from look-alikes

Triangulation puts a third person in the position of ammunition, with the focus on winning a dispute between two people. Divide and Conquer is about the gap: its effect is that people who might have compared notes do not.

Flying Monkeys are third parties who carry pressure to you, often unknowingly, while here the thing carried is distorted talk about each other. Forced Teaming builds closeness to override your choices, while this pattern builds distance between people.