Are ideas flexible?

Laffey and Weldes postulate that ideas—as symbolic technologies—are a social construction that allow you to make sense of the world. Our interests (also a symbolic technology) are ultimately an idea, then. Following this logic, I wonder how the ideas and interests of actors would (or would not) be represented within an organization meant to be impartial. 

Take the UN Secretariat, for example. The Secretariat’s members—though based out of individual sovereign states—are employed by the UN, not by their nation. In this regard, they are mean to be an objective voice within the UN rather than a representative of their state. If our ideas--which then fuel our actions--are socially constructed, however, one would assume that the desires, motivations, and actions of these members would ultimately be driven by the viewpoint they have developed given their social surroundings (i.e. their state).

Yet, I wonder if given the theory that LW provides, if our symbolic technologies are flexible and can change given the circumstance. If so, can it be argued that impartial actors might change their ideas to reflect the viewpoint/construction of the institution which they now represent? Or, does this theory ultimately reaffirm a more rational theory that our ideas and interests are indicative of certain motivations, thereby negating the possibility of impartiality in international relations? 

The application of theory in international relations (at least the theories we have discussed thus far) is quite dense and complex. Many times I find myself leaving a reading or live session with more questions than answers! I would love to know your thoughts.