Shock and Awe

Finding the right words when we’re aghast, agog, dumbstruck

The Scream by Edvard Munch, 1893 (public domain - Wikipedia)

“The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation…We, even we here, hold the power and bear the responsibility.”
— Abraham Lincoln, 1862

The annals of leadership, both military and civil, are filled with stories less of triumph than of astonishment — astonishment at the behavior of one’s fellows, whether hostile or merely absurd.

For the commander on the battlefield, as for the manager in the boardroom, the most disarming maneuver is not a flanking movement or a clever turn of phrase, but the deployment of behavior so bizarre, so grotesque in its disregard for custom, law, or decency, that it leaves the opponent dumbstruck.

The pressing question becomes one of which response or action best meets the moment. The answer, as is typical, can be found in history and charted for the present. Read on for examples and a framework.

Intimidation Tactics

In 2003, the Pentagon’s strategists borrowed the phrase “shock and awe” from the lexicon of psychological warfare. The idea was simple enough: to so overwhelm the enemy’s senses with the spectacle of irresistible force — explosions lighting the night sky like some infernal fireworks — that the only imaginable response was paralysis.

Yet the tactic was hardly new.

Thucydides records in The Peloponnesian War how the Athenians sought to cow the islanders of Melos with a similar theater of menace, declaring that “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”

The lesson was not one of persuasion, but of intimidation, calculated to leave the other party without words, without recourse, without hope.

In more recent times, shock and awe has not required bombs or battalions. A single individual, whether a head of state or a corporate officer, can deploy the tactic with nothing more than a torrent of invective or an action so wildly disproportionate that the ordinary rules of dialogue collapse.

The legendary story of Caligula appointing his horse to the Roman Senate may be apocryphal, but it demonstrates his wish to remind his subjects that power rendered reason irrelevant.

Or Joseph McCarthy, whose reckless accusations in the 1950s silenced senators and citizens alike, not by virtue of their plausibility but by their sheer audacity.

Or the undignified exhibition of a preening, flag-hankied Secretary of “War” before hundreds of serious career flag officers.

Reaction Required

What then is a leader to do when confronted with such theater? The instinct, in the face of outrageous conduct, is to gape like spectators at the circus, to allow silence to stand in for judgment.

But silence is precisely the aim of the performance. The outrageous act thrives on stunned passivity; it draws its strength from the vacuum of reply.

The wiser course is to refuse the script.

Cicero, confronting the demagogue Catiline in the Roman Senate, did not feign surprise at treachery too obvious to ignore. He named it, detailed it, exposed it, until the man stood revealed not as a figure of menace but as a criminal stripped of his camouflage.

Likewise, the civil rights leaders of the 20th century — Martin Luther King, Jr. foremost among them — met the billy clubs and fire hoses of Bull Connor not with stunned silence, but with a voice that spoke calmly, relentlessly, in the cadences of justice. Their power was not in volume but in refusal: the refusal to be cowed into speechlessness.

Leadership, in moments of shock, is less about improvising brilliant counterattacks than about reasserting the order of meaning. To call things by their proper names, to remind the bewildered onlookers that cruelty is not strength, that absurdity is not wit, that power without principle is not authority.

The outrageous act is a bluff, and like all bluffs it collapses once met with the steady hand of truth.

A Framework

Outrageous behavior thrives on shock and imbalance. Your job isn’t to match it — it’s to restore equilibrium. When a social norm is violated such that our usual scripts fail us, try this framework to reclaim your voice:

Reorient Yourself Before Reacting

• Pause and breathe. Silence isn’t weakness—it’s a moment of recalibration. Let your nervous system catch up.

• Name the feeling. Are you shocked, offended, confused, hurt? Identifying the emotion helps you decide what to do next.

Choose Your Response Intentionally

• Call it out—if safe and appropriate. A simple “That’s not okay” or “I don’t agree with that” can be powerful.

• Ask a clarifying question. Sometimes outrageous behavior masks ignorance or insecurity. “Can you explain what you meant by that?” puts the burden back on them.

• Use silence strategically. A long pause or a raised eyebrow can speak volumes. It signals that something is off without escalating.

Protect Your Boundaries

• Exit the situation. If the behavior is toxic or harmful, disengaging is a valid and strong choice.

• Document or report if necessary. In professional or public settings, outrageous behavior may warrant formal action.

Reflect and Reframe

• Debrief with someone you trust. Talking it through helps restore your sense of reality and moral clarity.

• Use it as fuel. Outrage can be a catalyst—for writing, activism, or simply refining your own values.

---

Can I help you and your team develop better communication strategies to create a healthy, accountable, and supportive environment?

---

In politics (corporate, local, or federal) as in war, the spectacle seeks to rob us of words. The leader’s task is to find them again — to speak when silence seems easier, to restore sense to the theater of nonsense, and thus to prove that shock and awe is no match for calm and clarity.

There’s so much to learn,