Things at the office are definitely going from bad to worse. They don't know how to address people to establish a sense of belonging, primarily because there's no common ground around which to approach work other than compliance with the immediate supervisor. People have no basis for their opinions because the focus is essentially on meeting expectations; anything beyond that enters undefined territory where everyone applies their own principles. At a party I attended, I witnessed nothing but disappointment regarding what management, in my view, should be. The difficulties faced by managers in operating amidst the country's tragedies were discussed, aiming for a brighter, more normal future. However, we still don't know the steps to achieve any real normalcy, only the efforts made in that direction, but these efforts lack a solid methodological foundation. They say they need to hear from us, but what we want to tell them is that if they themselves don't know what to do with the company, even the most knowledgeable manager is unable to offer any input, since they don't operate according to management principles, but rather based on mere survival. Any comment made to them will be like jumping into a hell or a heaven, because in the midst of this struggle for survival there's a desperate search to escape, which in itself can lead to either appreciating the comment or making efforts to get the person making it to stop at all costs. The company's own "management" doesn't inspire confidence. It's also painful, it must be said, that they operate based on indirect messages; that is, they state that there is concern for the employee, that there are difficulties for the company's progress, but they assume certain situations regarding the nation's contribution in the midst of the tragedy, establishing a range of approval for what lies behind it, which makes employees who aren't involved feel uncomfortable. That's already a way of excluding us. The fact that they told us they wanted to hear from us is ironic because: if we came to a party to share, complaining definitely isn't in our nature.

This made that sharing feel like an effort to get everyone to come, at the cost of free food, to put us in a difficult position: an act of victimhood, justified by unspoken reasons, suppressing our individuality, making us feel guilty, watching them suffer, and thus prompting us to make comments that might seem ill-considered, taking advantage of the surprise they were asking for. It felt like they were searching for an excuse to tell other companies in the same community that: the situation was established, we expressed empathy, and we were asked if there was anything to say, and nobody said anything, even though many were absent after the tragedy. What a disgrace; it was a failed attempt at political self-preservation. The most disappointing thing for me was watching one boss make light of the way he manipulated another, making it public and presenting it as something common among them. He also expressed that the bosses support each other by protecting one another, which in itself shows that some bosses depend on others, each allowing themselves to live as they please, rather than pursuing improvement that would foster independence and allow each to focus more intently on their own area. And what hurt the most was when anyone dared to comment on how things were done, as this individual's attitude was one of overwhelming stress. Any attempt to listen, if one dared to offer a comment, was more of an illusion than a way to touch a nerve, leading to disastrous consequences, just as happens with this system.

It's also painful to see how the case of a young woman, the disappearance of a family member, was used as a propaganda tool. They made no mention of the efforts they made to find out how she was doing, keeping it a secret. The young woman had to make the effort to explain that they were doing it, presenting it as a sign of appreciation, when it was a complete contradiction to the spirit they had previously shown towards her: being there in times of emergency, but when they're not, it results in arguments, veiled insults, and other things. It's awful to see how they try to hide their contradiction in public, which shows they were trying to silence comments. They thought the young woman would keep quiet, wouldn't say anything, at the cost of having received this special treatment from them, but she didn't allow it, as it should have been. This matter should have been discussed publicly; there's a group for that. However, that would have exposed their hypocrisy right away. At least, it would have been the best scenario, accompanied by some apologies.

We are talking about a management style that definitely doesn't acknowledge its mistakes, unless they are obvious, and they readily admit them with a heroism far surpassing that of actors on stage. This style thrives on managing in its own way, completely detached from the true meaning of management, because it doesn't operate with human resources—considering their anatomy and context—to carry out events. Instead, it operates from a place of victimhood, coercion, and image. The company consists of positions but not standards, leading to the mere fulfillment of orders. These orders may well be in line with the job requirements, but they don't allow employees to develop a sense of place, which is what drives them to feel integrated into the organization, committed to safeguarding their position, and, initially, focused on fulfilling their job responsibilities. They understand the consequences of their actions within the structure and, of course, their limitations, as others also operate within the organization based on their positions.

We also discussed how relationships beyond the workplace are so neglected that they are actively undermined, as they hinder the individual's integration into the department. This is done through both negligence and direct abuse of power. Undoubtedly, this incident between me and this young woman, which required us to take action to move forward and stabilize our situation, has instilled distrust in management among all employees. They perceive that management acts out of self-interest, masking a hypocritical facade of heroism and addressing perceived needs, thus perpetuating the perception of a manipulative administration. Of course, this has had consequences not only for the employees but also within the management team itself. At that meeting, it was observed that each person followed a different approach to engaging with the staff: Some, as I mentioned, focused on supporting employees personally to promote workplace inclusion; others focused on self-help and management, also promoting workplace inclusion; and still others completely ignored the meeting and the discussions. It's clear that the meeting served as a way for the managers to vent their frustration at having carried the company, seemingly in the almost complete absence of the employees, and also as a way to unload their pent-up frustration on the other managers.

Thank God, and the worst part is that after the celebration, the company's WhatsApp group commented that the party had been wonderful. Where will this end? What I find is that the constant confrontation is applauded, or at least it's established that the conflict didn't occur from the perspective of the other actors, at the cost of indicating a willingness to return to war. If I'm the only one who noticed this, we're talking about a company that's completely out of touch with itself regarding the prevailing social situation within it.

Stories in the same category