Perception vs Truth in Organisations

I understand this is a philosophical question, but it plagues me as find it applicable to organizations, its members and the wider society. I was conducting Postgraduate research within a particular organisation, with a specific focus on environmental issues affecting the organization. I have found many articles in archived newspapers, where protest groups criticized this organisation and its actions with particular reference to the detrimental effects its production has on the environment.
Further probing within the organization, I found that there was such immense commitment from organizational members despite the reality of the accusations from protest groups that criticize the organization’s actions. There appeared to be a culture of pride in what the organization does, which seemed to have resulted in a blind belief that the organization is doing things right. This begs the question: will the actualization of the reality be detrimental to their commitment; or will it benefit the organization in the long run, by creating more awareness, and in turn attempt to find more solutions to the problems the organization faces?

The alleged environmentally-aware initiatives the organization has employed might be a measure to placate opposition groups. However, it might also be a genuine concern for their environment and their corporate image. Does it make a difference? Is it necessary for an organization to act altruistically and genuinely do things for the “right reasons”? Is the idea that both parties benefit, enough? The reason why these questions arose is because the organization’s mission, objectives and values emphasize the fact that it undertakes its initiatives for altruistic reasons. How honest does an organization have to be in order to be transparent? Is transparency a fallacy- an idealistic beacon never to be achieved, but rather something to strive towards? Perhaps we should more accurately use the term, translucency. That appears to be more apt, because if transparency is claimed, I believe many organizations will fall short of this ideal and be doomed to succumb to business practices riddled with hypocrisy. If honesty & integrity is your mission, then perhaps the business might suffer if it is carried out in its truest form. Then does perception always prevail over truth? In the end perception might be all that is left, because the organization can control this. And maybe that is all that is really important. If organizational members perceive the organizations’ activities to be blameless, and this leads to sustained productivity and profitability then truth can be discounted; and consecutively those who preach the truth with their harsh criticisms can more effectively be silenced.

Pretension

I used to be the one who truly believed artists could change the world. I thought that a brush stroke could turn a painting into social and political commentary that will shape young minds and inspire the evolution of a race of conscious human beings – instead of the droves of brain-dead savages whose only contribution to society is that they followed something somewhere along the line.

I was above it all, and consumed in my own pretension. Every poetic verse spoke to me. Every song lyric, every kick and every snare composed a score to my life story. I was alive and inspired by creativity. I shared stories with artists, and they became the voices that echoed my pain. There were no responsibilities, no bond, no 9 to 5 – only blissful awareness of just being. I looked down at the droves with disdain and with some pity, for their blind suffering.

So just because he cooks for me, I should feel lucky?

Whenever I chat with some female colleagues at work and they complain about having to cook for their families every night, I simply cannot join in the bitch-session. After a few minutes of silence the inevitable question comes my way, where one of the superwomen turns to me and eagerly eggs me on by saying: “Don’t you agree?”

This after they’ve discussed in moronic detail about how difficult it is to rush home after work to try to prepare a quick meal for the family. I could actually picture it- an HR Executive, who at work is confident, composed and always in control, but after hours she is in a frantic panic, patent-leather designer handbag still slung over the shoulder as she takes out the half-defrosted value pack of chicken from the fridge. Her stilletto’s burning the balls of her feet, and the metal clasp digging into her sensitive flesh just below her ankle, but taking them off would waste too much time so she pushes through the pain. Whilst stir-fying up the remainder of her vegetables, she mentally runs through the nutritional information she googled on mushrooms and soya, and at last her husband saunters into the kitchen, kisses her on the cheek and says: “Something smells good, what’s for supper?”

But, NO, I cannot empathize, as my household is rather unconventional- then again, unconventional is the new conventional I suppose. It’s more like me who saunters into the house after work and asks: “What’s for supper?” When I reluctantly disclose this information I predictably get the “Oh you’re so lucky” response. So just because my husband cooks for me, I’m supposed to feel like the luckiest woman in the world? I beg to differ, women have been doing it for centuries and do their husbands ever turn round to one another and say, “Oh you’re a lucky guy!” – NO! That’s because it is expected. If your husband cooks for you, you’re supposed to be so thankful, and if the wife doesn’t then it is an abnormality. Did I miss something, or maybe society did, like the millennium. Hello!