Recently I got rather annoyed. However, I soon reminded myself that status quos exist for a reason.
Annoyance however, is a feeling that:
- I didn’t even know that I was being represented;
- I’m not represented very well;
- How did “they” know how to represent “us” when er…they don’t even know our existence, and vice versa. Does it mean that “they” just…assume? ;
- LOL the organisation doesn’t even know exactly what they are representing.
- In official reports of course, everything will follow a fixed narrative that is designed for the status quo to last. Because this fixed narrative is comfortable and the truth is either too harsh for the personal pride(s) of various parties, or people frankly don’t care.
In two words: fucked up.
You see, if you choose consciously to join such an organisation and you don’t really er…actively change anything/ cannot change anything, you are implictly agreeing to it being fucked up.
So the conclusion is you should not join any organization if you cannot identify with its vision. Neither should you join any organization if you want to “change the organization”, because that’s disrespectful to the leader(s).
Instead, if you really want “change to the status quo”, you should start another organization on your own. If you don’t, then it means you don’t want “it” enough to go through all the trouble–but it still doesn’t necessarily mean that you should stay with the current organization.
Because the new organization, if well positioned, can still do better than the existing one with minimal effort.
Actually, being on your own can also be better than joining a fucked up organization because you don’t have to deal with bullshit. The key is to know thyself.
Any organisation is a system. Someone once coded this system with an algorithm, a purpose and intention. But if an organization is fucked up, then it shows that sustainability wasn’t a key consideration when the founders coded it.
This either suggests bad positioning, or that in the first place, the organization was set up due to personal pride and not based on real, existing needs of members.
Anyway, the sure-proof method to test if a person is in some sort of voodoo/denial is to ask for verifiable facts.
But the problem really is, you know, that sometimes people just want to “do their job scope” with minimal effort? You are seen as an irritant if you try to increase their workload, even if technically, YOU are part of their responsibility.
As such, they will try to shut you off to continue whatever line of narrative that works best for them. Status quo.
In the past I’d be really irritated and try to challenge this, but now I’d decided one thing:
So be it.
They can continue to claim to represent me or whatever–and that can be done in their imaginations since I’d never given written consent.
But wow, how humbling to know that things cannot be changed given the current positioning!
It gives clarity on how I should personally position next, and for that I’m extremely thankful.🙂