Seven years in the software world and I find myself sitting in Townhalls and meetings, sometimes not just understanding the presentations but able to question the validity of the messages reported by the presenter.
I attended one such event last week. The presenter announced the introduction of a new tool and proceeded to explain how we were using it enthusiastically to prove improved productivity and were able to deliver better quality work. As one of the staff using the tool and being a strong crusader against its benefits, I was surprised at the declaration. One or two of my colleagues looked at my face when the announcement was being made, fully aware of my counter-campaigning. Not much one can say or do but be a mute audience in such circumstances.
Two days later, I overheard a couple of my colleagues who are part of the team being pushed to use the tool, discuss the broadcast made by the official. They were equally surprised and amused.
This reminded me of my days in an earlier organization where I had the privilege of sitting next to a communications manager. She was a lady with amazing capabilities to handle press and media, in any situation. Sitting next to her, I have inevitably and unintentionally, eavesdropped various conversations that went on at her desk. I, once, heard her explain to someone how one had to tweak information to make it look authentic enough while not exactly revealing facts that could harm the institution.
Every time I read an article in the papers, I wonder how much of it is really true. It was, most likely, a piece written by a public relations officer in a believable manner, veiling facts just enough to save the company's face. To think, I have spent my childhood years believing that if something was reported in the newspaper, it had to be the absolute truth!