An outright (overt) threat, either made orally or in writing, gives your adversary an advance warning to prepare a counterthreat or defensive action. More often than not, these types of threats engender hostility and defensiveness more than compliance with the desired objective. If the threat is menacing enough, you can find law enforcement on your doorstep. And if you don't carry through with the threat after your adversary has failed to comply with whatever your demands were, you will have lost a position of negotiating strength.
The only threats that are effective are:
1) a threat of a lawful or legal action which you carry through with at the scheduled compliance deadline. These are perfectly fine to put in writing, as a matter of notice and record; or,
2) an imagined and unspoken threat, as perceived by your adversary when he has opened that envelope of nasty photos (as described in sordid detail earlier). In this type of case, you have let your adversary's mind do all of the threatening, without having said a single word.
If you do not believe that your adversary can be 'behaviorally re-directed' by either of the two above approaches, you must attend to matters swiftly, precipitously and without any warning whatsoever. in order to change the undesirable predicament to which this other individual or entity has subjected you.
Generally speaking, positive reinforcement or negotiation is preferred to threatening whenever possible. If threatening is indicated in the circumstances, let your quarry's mind (and his imagination) do the work for you. And lastly, actions are generally preferable to threats.
This last comment regarding the taking of action is important, and should not be taken lightly. If you have achieved a reputation for taking action, that is more often than not, the greatest threat of all.
Don't be perceived as an extortionist. It is far better to be perceived as a person of action or as a positive motivator in most cases you will encounter.
Douglas E Castle
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment