In the context of current corporate relations, the truth is no longer perceived as a moral constant (connoisseurs can ask rhetorically: but when it was?), But it becomes a flexible resource, adapted to the strategic needs of the moment, in the pursuit of productivity at any cost. This adaptability tool can reflect the evolution of sophisticated psychosocial mechanisms. All studies show that high intelligence is needed to be able to operate with such mechanisms, which allow the temporary suspension of ethical constraints in favor of maximizing efficiency. One of the most refined manifestations of this phenomenon is the paltering – the deliberate use of true statements to generate false perceptions. This practice allows to maintain an apparent integrity, while manipulating the interlocutor's expectations by omitting the essential information or the intentional redirection of the interpretation. An example in the commercial field would be a reply: «The product resists exactly how much it is doomed to resist.» Although factual correctly, the statement induces erroneous expectations regarding the durability of the product. Thus, the truth becomes a vehicle of ambiguity, and communication – an art of suggestion, not transparency. This form of manipulation is often accompanied by a complementary psychological mechanism: moral disagreement. According to Albert Bandura's theory, moral disagreement involves the temporary suspension of ethical self -control through rationalizations that reduce cognitive dissonance. In more words for us, it is that ability of the individual to be convinced that what he does is not so wrong – even if, objectively, it is – using justifications such as «it was for the good of the team» or «I had no choice». Thus, the lie or manipulation become acceptable to themselves, because they are reinterpreted in a frame that sounds moral or reasonable and we can sleep more easily at night. Returning to organizations, this moral disagreement circulates in the following forms: the first would be the moral justification – the attribution of a «noble» purpose to a questionable action (eg «was for the good of the company»); Then, the euphemistic labeling – the reformulation of the undesirable behavior in acceptable terms (eg «strategic information management» instead of the lie); Dissemination of responsibility-distributing the guilt in a collective framework (eg «the whole team has decided») and minimizing the consequences-underestimating the impact of behavior on others.
Daniel Popescu is a psychologist and psychotherapist, founder of the Psynfo application
For other news, analyzes, articles and information from real -time business follows the financial newspaper on WhatsApp Channels