Global Journal of Management and Business Research, A: Administration and Management, Volume 23 Issue 1

this happens unless a particularly punctilious recipient begins to analyse every piece of data and every value in the company report. In this case, it can identify the information. Understandably, this is not done by a typical third party outside the company, belonging to the community, who wants information on the company's situation, but by experts with particular objectives. We use the concept of possible and not of certainty because when data is highly detailed, synthetic, disaggregated, aggregated, re-aggregated, or disaggregated again in other ways; an expert may miss the relevant information that the company did not want to be communicated outside the company. 3) How to Create the Basis for the Interlocutor to "Go Crazy" (In Corporate Information to the Outside World and Internally Between Managers, Employees and Company Staff). Ally between Managers, Employees And Company Staff) Modern psychiatry has consistently pointed out that one of the ways of creating mental distress that can lead to a subject going mad is the methodology of giving the subject synthetic but conflicting information. In addition, if the issue has to decide which option to choose, if the two options are both negative, the mental discomfort will increase to degrees and no longer be treatable. A method, therefore, to drive the interlocutor 'crazy' and provide information, usually concise, contrasting with each other to enable the interlocutor to understand that he is faced with two contrasting elements that cannot be interpreted because one is exactly the opposite of the other. Let us leave aside, as this is not the place to deal with the subject, the case in which a topic has to choose between two negative options. In this case, the mental consequences can also be serious, but this is not the place to investigate this issue in depth. Consider, for example, the case of a company that is hit with a very large fine for an environmental issue such as. Suppose that in the social report two years later, all the various actions that the company's subjects have implemented to improve both the environment and the company's community made up of workers and subjects that directly and indirectly collaborate with the company against these two pieces of information, the recipient of the communication has to deal with two conflicting elements: on the one hand, he reads that the company has been hit with a tax for environmental reasons. On the other hand, he reads a social report of dozens of pages on glossy paper with beautiful photos filled with socio-environmental data showing the company's social and environmental commitment and faced with this situation, if one asks: what reaction can the recipient has? A first reaction may be to disbelieve the sustainability report and think everything in it is fake and made up of elements that are not entirely realistic. In this case, the recipient will notice the abundance of photos of smiling children, blue skies, white clouds, green meadows, people working with an incredible smiles on their faces, comfortable and ergonomic work locations, etc., it is evident that the recipient of the information, bearing in mind the information on the fine imposed for environmental reasons, will see this report as a marketing tool. With further consideration, knowing the penalty imposed for ecological reasons will make the whole thing almost absurd is ridiculous. For example, consider a company that is hit with a tax assessment showing tax evasion of millions of euros. Suppose this company produces a sustainability report in which, on glossy pages, it describes all the policies it has implemented over the past year in favour of the environment of the community, its workers and all the citizens living in the company's vicinity. Here again, the recipient of the information has to deal with two conflicting communications: the first is that the company is evading tax for tens of hundreds of millions, obviously taking away retro-economic elements from the state that would make it possible to improve the environment, society and the community and, among other things, the citizens living in the vicinity of the company. The other information is linked to a marvellous sustainability report, which, more than a report, looks like a critical bound book showing the commitment to the community, the citizens and all those who have relations with the company through social, environmental and, in general, pro-community policies around the company. In this case, too, the recipient has to deal with two conflicting pieces of information: on the one hand, a company that takes away money that is needed for the community, and on the other, a report that, through dozens of glossy pages, illustrates, usually in a very pompous manner, the commitment made in favour of the environment and the community itself. It is clear that the recipient of the information has two conflicting pieces of information, which can only create mental discomfort. In this case, we are not talking about mental pain that results in mental illness because the recipient of the information provided by the company that is conflicting will autonomously choose the one that he considers more correct and will consider the other fraudulent or ridiculous or even absurd. But the basic psychiatric principle is of considerable interest: mental distress is created when faced with two conflicting pieces of information. It is repeated that we do not address the issue of mental pain resulting in mental illness. However, there is no doubt that this contrast that there may be between the information creates at least an informational discomfort for the recipient of the communication who can no longer distinguish what is real from what is a story told to embellish and do the so-called Windows Dressing operation to the company. 34 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXIII Issue I Version I Year 2023 ( ) A © 2023 Global Journals Communicating through Non-Communication or Over-Communication