A system may have rules that appear the same for everyone, yet are applied differently in practice. This is particularly evident when someone complains about the conduct of a person in a position of authority.
The person speaking is expected to be patient, to choose their tone carefully, and not to damage the organization’s reputation. At the same time, the issue they’ve raised is easily dismissed as a “misunderstanding” that shouldn’t be pursued further.
Fact-checking is indeed necessary. But it must be applied equally to both sides. If we hold one party to every rule while shielding the other because of their position, we will not reach a fair conclusion.
People learn from such practices just how much it’s worth speaking up. Therefore, trust in the system also depends on whether it can investigate an uncomfortable issue without humiliating the person who raised it and without prearranged protection for the person whose conduct is being questioned.
Comments