What would make you believe?

[pzyck]

I recently demonstrated to a colleague some irrefutable proof (bar a literal confession from the CEO) of how the public organisation I work for is on some levels, financially operating in the best interest of its board members and not that of the public who fund it. Said colleague is incredibly loyal to the organisation and refused to see what I was presenting. It made me wonder whether anything, even the CEO/CFO explicitly admitting to what I'd shown her, would make her change her mind or whether she would hold her beliefs no matter what.

So I'm interested to ask a wider community: if (and I'm using this because it is probably the best known example, I'm not claiming anything about it) the conspiracy theories surrounding the likes of something much bigger such as 9/11 (or any other global level incident) were to be true after all, what would it take for you to believe it? Would anything even alter your beliefs?

Is your post trying to say that you've got proof that your publicly funded organisation is acting dodgy, and you showed proof to your colleague and she didn't care?

If so, then the answer is: nothing is good enough evidence for people who don't like to rock the boat. I've worked as assistant or secretary to lots of publicly funded boards, and everyone of them has been dodgy, giving huge contracts to their friends and spouses businesses.

@Angelofthenortheast The last part is exactly what I demonstrated to her, after she went off on a huge tangent about how the organisation should be given more money and I suggested the money it already receives should firstly be utilised more efficiently.

But it made me wonder that if someone can feel so strongly about their employer, what would it take (if anything) to make people change their minds about the people who control every aspect of our lives (the economy/public health/military/etc).

If you have evidence which can be certified or corroborated than you whistleblow your concerns to prompt an investigation. That’s the sort of action which many people need before they’ll fully appreciate what’s been going on: until then it’s easy to pass off as hearsay, office politics, or stirring the pot due to a personal grievance.

*verified, not certified.

In my experience, people only change their blinkered views about something if it negatively affects them personally - usually in the wallet.

Firstly, I'd question what makes you think you have the panoptical view anyone would need to be able to "demonstrate" (weird choice of word IMHO) - show, explain perhaps - the "irrefutable proof" - proof of what? You may have proof of something but it is relevant or enough? Is there a causal link between what you say you have proof of and the statement about a business (a huge and complex entity) and the primary benefactors. Are you credible, do you have access to the complete picture - including the current status, the long term plans that perhaps only a limited number at the top of an organisation have knowledge of? The first problem is that your colleague didn't listen to you - why was that then? Did you choose the wrong person to talk to? Have you put your concerns in writing? Is that what they are - concerns? What is your aim? Why would someone with the best interests of the organisation at heart not listen? The best organisations I have worked for were "bad news" organisations - they had a positive attitude to receiving news of problems - poor organisations are apt to be very blinked, naive perhaps, when receiving good news - and they create an atmosphere where staff are reluctant to disclose bad news - sometimes it is covered up.

You mention belief and loyalty as though decision makers in your business do not possess the facts and faculties or have the right intentions to be enable the business to work towards its aims and objectives. Even in the public sector competition for experienced leaders, who might have options to work in the private sector is real so in order for your organisation to succeed, continue to do what it does, you may well have to offer competitive packages to the people at the top. You need to explain more about what you seem to perceive as the problem. Your organisation may be working under constraints - statutory, regulatory obligations, financial constraints, limited resources - many things that you might be aware of that limit how effective your organisation can be.

I think it's almost impossible. Most people pin their mental security on the belief that what they're told by anyone in authority is true.

And when you couple that with how people who disbelieve authority are portrayed (conspiracy theorists, troublemakers, or even just plain 'crazy')... It's understandable that most people are terrified of being a minority voice.