Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan  I don't see this as a fear based problem resolution.
If you believe that transparency/truth is a universal good, then notifying the customer base of your situation is more of an ethical imperative than anything negative. |
But Steve didn't spread transparency and the truth, he only used the threat of transparency to blackmail the company for his own personal gain. He was serving himself and only himself.
If he wanted to unearth unfair treatment of customers there would be no sum of money that could buy his silence. Instead of being paid off he would have sent the email to all the customers to protect them from potential mistreatment.
Alternatively he could have sent an email to the company counseling them on his issues, providing ideas to help them out, and also explaning very clearly that he sees it as abuse of customers and if they keep it up their business will surely erode over time and lose more and more good customers like they lost Steve.
That would have been the love approach IMO. The debate within the love community would just be whether it's better to reveal the issue to all the customers, or to put your effort into counselling the company, telling them you won't reveal, but that you suggest they do the revealing for their own good so they can turn a new corner.
I would call the two approaches the Priest and the Activist. The Activist fights corruption by spreading the truth to the people, the Priest fights the corruption through private counsel and encouragement.