Granting concessions to anybody who threatens to leave the table is a harmful strategy.
You illustrate a classic example of being mind-killed, confusing questions with each other. You confuse factual questions with strategic considerations and consider the strategic considerations to be more important than the veracity.
Whether or not it’s a good strategy to grant concessions for threatening to leave is irrelevant to the factual question of whether leaving is harm.
You illustrate a classic example of being mind-killed, confusing questions with each other. You confuse factual questions with strategic considerations and consider the strategic considerations to be more important than the veracity.
Whether or not it’s a good strategy to grant concessions for threatening to leave is irrelevant to the factual question of whether leaving is harm.
A”good strategy” means “a strategy which harms us the least”. It’s not the leaving that is being considered harm, it;s the granting of concessions.
It might very well be that both leaving and granting concessions are harm on a factual level.
If the OP wouldn’t have posted neither or those harmful things would have happened. The post produced harm.