Closed Door Meetings – A strategy to suppress rebellion or a political act to achieve their vested interests?

Being subjected to a few closed meetings in different institutions, I have realised more than anyone the treachery behind this tactic; a tactic usually sprung on the victims without any warning to minimise their chances of preparedness. The purpose of these meetings is to sort out disagreements through discussions contrary to the expectations of the higher authorities who expect their victims to suffer in silence and eat the humble pie. When accusations are flung at the victimised, it is natural for the victimised to defend themselves and not accept the unjust complaints in stony silence. However, there are corrupt executives who mistakenly labour under the illusion that they are celestial beings before whom the ordinary mortals dare not voice their opinions. However, a legit policy document which the executives love to retrieve to play the blame game called the Code of Conduct states that –

“All employees are expected to be approachable, courteous, and prompt in dealing with other people, including clients, members of the community, students, and other employees (irrespective of their position or seniority). In dealing with other people, you should be able to accommodate and tolerate different opinions and perspectives and sort out your disagreements by rational discussion. Rational discussion presupposes that there is open communication and the freedom to voice another point of view. Such a discussion should not involve verbal abuse or physical intimidation. For example, you may criticise a person’s ideas but you should not criticize the person, and you should not verbally abuse, vilify or belittle students or colleagues (including your supervisors) personally or to others.” (Page 7)

While I have taken the liberty to quote a significant chunk from the document, it is the underlined part that I would like to draw your attention to. Instead of tolerating different opinions and viewpoints, denying the victim the opportunity to clear their name by voicing their side of the story is a sign of poor leadership skills. As long as the victim does not intentionally insult the party(ies) verbally, the former could even criticize the complainant’s statements or intentions etc. making sure that the criticism does not extend to the person. It is often the practice of executives to hide their real intentions and use the meeting as a tool to cow down the spirits of the subordinate. It is often the tendency of executives to push the hot buttons, meet out consequences to the victims to make them feel powerless and to have the final say to emphasise their position in their hierarchy. That’s the way it is usually done. Dare to disagree? Watch the video given below.