Bea V. Larsen . . . .Commentaries |
|
|
Bea V. Larsen is a Senior Mediator at the Center for Resolution of Disputes in |
|
|
|
Desperate Measures This entry was posted on 2/23/2008 11:29 AM and is filed under Generally Speaking. A caller sought advice which in the moment I could not give. He told the following story: Four years earlier, during a time of marital separation, he sought solace in the arms of a sympathetic coworker. But within days they abandoned their brief affair, she not wanting to place her marriage at risk.
Later he and his wife reconciled, and during an intimate moment he disclosed this misstep. Now, years later, again separated, their divorce action was pending. His soon to be ex-wife was demanding an excessive financial settlement and threatened, if thwarted, to tell all to the husband of his former friend. He was in turmoil, imagining painful, perhaps irrevocable, consequences. This left me in a quandary. The issue of extortion, which I deem this to be, has never arisen before. Then, oddly, within days of this call, a colleague conducting a mediation in another city, also sought advice about coercion. During a session, an ex- husband, seeking to end his long term support obligation, issued a challenge to his former wife. He possessed documentation that established her prior knowledge that a former coworker, who was also a close friend, had breached the trade secret policy of her employer. She had never disclosed what he now threatened to reveal. Although no known harm had come of her silence, she feared her disloyalty would damage her reputation and likely imperil her job. After considerable thought, my suggestion for both victims was to first consult with legal counsel. Perhaps a letter sent to each of those seeking financial gain by intimidation, questioning whether they were aware of the criminal nature of their proposed actions, would be a sufficient deterrent. Yet, even if dissuaded for now, this pressure could be renewed at any time, perhaps in more subtle fashion. And if not deterred, then what? Call their bluff? Are bullies closet cowards? Or capitulate? Accept the financial and possible job loss? Or try to understand the motivation for the desperate measures being taken? Could the threatened party step back and with genuine interest question why such scare tactics are being used? Explore compromise? Or is this sheer folly? In an ideal world, would it not make sense to become a truth teller and take back personal power? Is this the only secure ending? Give the friend who had preserved her marriage the option of maintaining the secret, or not. Would the employer understand, even respect the conflicted loyalty of a valued employee, when belatedly told of the failed espionage? Each possible course of action carries risks difficult to weigh, but taking responsibility for past actions wrests control from the unprincipled aggressor. Even if a high price to pay, untroubled sleep the reward. . |
|
|