I don't want to share my knowledge with the office, my reflections, which will remain solely with me in the future. I'm not interested in doing so; it truly pains me, because they're supposed to know all these things, but they don't. They don't act according to protocol, but rather by chain of command, in a way that's almost military in nature. In every action taken, the law is involved; that's the spirit of the military, based on containing and preventing conflicts from escalating. This is the spirit the office aspires to, for God's sake.

They don't know how to behave in an office, and yet they make a living by pretending to be the wisest, and that's the majority. Ignorance reigns, and of course, where ignorance reigns, the one-eyed man is king. The one who can best escape the way things are is the one in charge, because he's the one who knows how to evade the defenses. That's why my boss was so rebellious in that office. I've been thinking about this for a while, wondering why this guy reached the point he did. The purpose of an office is unclear; documents serve merely as excuses, safeguarding authority and maintaining a facade. However, the focus is not on producing results, on hierarchical support, or on acting simply because someone is present—that's the spirit of any such presence—but rather on pre-established protocols. No problem, which is what I witnessed there, can be resolved by an order as an excuse, for God's sake. That office is a disaster from every perspective, and of course, the people are on the defensive because they don't know how to defend themselves. Instead, they use the image to sow doubt, to denigrate it; this is the key to surviving through the territorialization that no one told them to undertake. The company is merely decorative; there is no company. It has been hijacked by those in charge to do whatever they please, as long as the facade of a company is maintained.

I am completely disappointed by the improvisation, by this game, by the fact that things aren't taken into account, and that a young woman paid the price for her negligence. A young woman leaked a text message, not knowing what to do with it, a message that clearly stated it was for everyone to read—that's the point, after all, there's nothing to hide, unless there's a secret agreement, and of course, it doesn't involve any illicit scheme, which never happened. That text, which I wrote, wasn't shared by anyone who told the young woman she was doing the right thing, that it was simply a matter of documenting the situation. Instead, they only focused on what she was doing, on the image, not the action itself, thus creating a bias that validated the idea that she was trying to mess with others with her overly open-mindedness, which even overshadowed her work at the office, which was relegated to the background. I ask again, who can I share these thoughts with if they don't share this mindset? Knowing how to manage a company is considered a matter for scholars, for goodness sake. Instead of being the foundation, instead of requiring constant reflection, it all seems to point to a continuous display of power through imposition. Do these people accept criticism? Of course not. They're so nervous about having their mistakes exposed that they live only to defend themselves. Naturally, they can't maintain a stable structure.

These people aren't prepared to work, unfortunately, and it pains me to say it like this. They aren't. There's no culture of collaboration. It seems the school system has failed completely. People come in and do whatever they please with a big smile. Personally, I see that they're neglecting their work, for no other reason than to avoid expressing, divulging, or, in popular terms, exposing themselves—that they came to socialize. And believe me, I was told what I was doing when I kept to myself. I wish I had someone to talk this over with, but that person doesn't exist. The girl I teamed up with there definitely doesn't seem ready for this conversation because her socialization framework, her starting point, is radically different from mine. That's why I say our socialization styles are opposites. But I won't deny that if we made the effort, if we focused, she would understand what I have to say, just as I would understand hers. But functionality is what would divide us, because we would see difficulties in fulfilling our respective principles, leading to conflict.

The girl connected with me because, unlike the others who were caught between one framework and the other, and despite those who were in the same framework and lived through disappointment, and the others—the intermediate ones I'm referring to—who followed these others, she found that those who shared her same spirit weren't anything transcendent; they brought her problems that couldn't be solved.

That girl found a sacred place, something concrete, from elsewhere, from another world, something unknown to her, which, of course, raised her highest standards of socialization to the point of grounding it in something unique. And I certainly showed her that this was possible, through her fear of losing it, something that was indeed achieved. We were in that process; she always knew she could connect with me, that I could protect her, because she was clear about my principles, which were based on a strictly professional framework. In turn, she offered me something interesting, which was that strictly social framework, the issue being explicitly like mine. We could protect each other, and furthermore, we could understand each other, feel each other, embrace each other. I feel we like each other, but we don't want to get involved in anything sexual or other intimate ways. Maybe there might be some other similar things, but always with the understanding that each of us has our own life, which is different from the other's, but that we can understand each other and that we are capable of living with our differences, unlike how others think. That resentment is what motivates us to be together, to seek that form of intimate contact, and to form a group in front of the office. We are on our own, given the way we are together, where the social structure is somewhat disappointing, as is the professional one. However, both serve as a way to be in that office, to allow our group to exist, since there is a defensiveness from both perspectives.

My boss and his secretary operated from this same mindset, but it always ended in disaster thanks to their attempts to colonize us in some way, by any means necessary, at the cost of preventing the disclosure or doubt of the results with the departments they managed. In our case, we keep our distance from others, and our work is completely out in the open. Indeed, we are more trusted by the group than the others, who then go their own way, definitely. We make an impact and stand out because our way of socializing is different. The others coexist by preventing conflicts and accepting one or two others, whereas we embrace them and transcend them. Life between her and me is a constant conflict, because her life, under the same circumstances, points in one direction, and my principles in another. But being opposed, they allow for a direction to be forged; in essence, a dialectic is found, since by being opposed, and therefore having something of the other, this direction can be achieved. It's not easy to talk about this with someone. What existed between my boss and his secretary was a clash of opposing viewpoints, where the one who projected the best image to the group in terms of interpersonal skills won. However, they didn't consider the consequences beyond establishing a tyranny of silence among the others to prevent themselves from falling short of the objectives others expected of them.

I mean, admitting I took these tests at the office would be like getting myself killed. I think it's very important to carry them out in order to achieve effective collaboration with the young woman.

Stories in the same category