corboy,
A first, impressionistic, response.
Was hit by the word, "interrogation".
Coming out of legal services, this is a familiar term; one designs 'interrogatories, one conducts depositions, one reviews responses to 'interrogatories'.
That said, I cannot think of one deposition that began with, "I cannot believe you said THAT [did THAT]!!!"
So, let's say I have been called into bosses' offices in consulting firms that shall go nameless, and that is how it starts.
Mind you, these are fairly flat organizations, and people speak to each other in a sort of egalitarian way, whether they are functional equals, or not.
So, I can recall sitting 'there' thinking, "OMG, said what? said it where? said what, and where, and to whom?" Your mind reals, you are instantly on the defensive.
And, then the 'story' will be trotted out, and it is invariably some trivial thing..."you quoted a source we don't agree with", "you expressed this/that opinion"..."you praised X scholar"..."you suggested X might be possible", "you alluded to X resource"...
More often than even this crap, the accusation would pertain to nonsense, revealed by an "associate", whose name could not be disclosed.
Point is that it is the manner and phrasing of the accusation, rather than the accusation, itself. "I cannot believe, YOU...", "What were you thinking when YOU...?"
Also, I would say that once this 'culture' is installed, it is the END of all trust in the organization. I have worked in firms in which employees have their I-phones on 'record' for every internal conversation, or, check the ceiling tiles in their offices for bugs.
Me, I just think there is no business advantage in creating this kind of environment, so WHY do 'they' do this?
I go back to the thought that some people take a real 'duper's delight' in manipulating others, and it is this contingent that is most likely to be touting qualities like, "authenticity" and "integrity".
After you get 'the game'...you have to devise the counter-response.
I was partial to: "Bite me!" or, "Show me your dossier, mine commandant!"
///
Can't think of more to say on this...other than that, I SUSPECT that the more ridiculous the 'charge/accusation', the more effective it is in gaslighting the subject.
"You left privileged company property in a communal lunchroom"...(this would be me pealing a company, or client logo sticker off a binder, and discarding it in a trash can.)
"You were seen communicating with a competitor." This would be me having a conversation with a professional peer at a public event.
I could go on for days, but you get the idea...I hope.
bakkagirl
A first, impressionistic, response.
Was hit by the word, "interrogation".
Coming out of legal services, this is a familiar term; one designs 'interrogatories, one conducts depositions, one reviews responses to 'interrogatories'.
That said, I cannot think of one deposition that began with, "I cannot believe you said THAT [did THAT]!!!"
So, let's say I have been called into bosses' offices in consulting firms that shall go nameless, and that is how it starts.
Mind you, these are fairly flat organizations, and people speak to each other in a sort of egalitarian way, whether they are functional equals, or not.
So, I can recall sitting 'there' thinking, "OMG, said what? said it where? said what, and where, and to whom?" Your mind reals, you are instantly on the defensive.
And, then the 'story' will be trotted out, and it is invariably some trivial thing..."you quoted a source we don't agree with", "you expressed this/that opinion"..."you praised X scholar"..."you suggested X might be possible", "you alluded to X resource"...
More often than even this crap, the accusation would pertain to nonsense, revealed by an "associate", whose name could not be disclosed.
Point is that it is the manner and phrasing of the accusation, rather than the accusation, itself. "I cannot believe, YOU...", "What were you thinking when YOU...?"
Also, I would say that once this 'culture' is installed, it is the END of all trust in the organization. I have worked in firms in which employees have their I-phones on 'record' for every internal conversation, or, check the ceiling tiles in their offices for bugs.
Me, I just think there is no business advantage in creating this kind of environment, so WHY do 'they' do this?
I go back to the thought that some people take a real 'duper's delight' in manipulating others, and it is this contingent that is most likely to be touting qualities like, "authenticity" and "integrity".
After you get 'the game'...you have to devise the counter-response.
I was partial to: "Bite me!" or, "Show me your dossier, mine commandant!"
///
Can't think of more to say on this...other than that, I SUSPECT that the more ridiculous the 'charge/accusation', the more effective it is in gaslighting the subject.
"You left privileged company property in a communal lunchroom"...(this would be me pealing a company, or client logo sticker off a binder, and discarding it in a trash can.)
"You were seen communicating with a competitor." This would be me having a conversation with a professional peer at a public event.
I could go on for days, but you get the idea...I hope.
bakkagirl