"Clamming Up" because of power dynamics is inherent to hierarchy. This is why relationships with co-founders and employees need to be nurtured carefully. It's the same set of dynamics that happen inside a band.
If you always want candid advice, honest feedback, and critical though unpleasant information to flow freely and undistorted, then you must remember that actions speak louder than words. If someone tried to tell you something you really need to hear, though you may not have wanted to hear it, what did you do? How did you react? It's not enough to just say that you're for honesty and openness. It's not enough to say you value someone's opinion. You have to actually do that!
Did you counter-attack? Did you order your underling to never speak of "it" again? Did you use the differential in power to just shut-up and shut-off? If you were asked to give a detailed account of what the other person had to say, would they be satisfied that you gave a full and fair account of what they were trying to convey? Would you even be able to recall such details, or would your account be sketchy and vague?
Paying your employees well and having a great environment is actually a double-edged sword, here. What happens, if one day, your early employee comes to you with something they know you don't want to hear, and you react badly? What if you raise your voice and manage to make them feel threatened. That employee will get the message that, despite your lip-service, you don't want to hear it. What's that employee going to do? It's not too unlikely they will "get the message" and clam up, go with the flow, and play it safe to keep their cushy 6-figure job. The flow of candid information from that employee will drop by a lot!
Now, to bring things back to the semi-political: If just having hierarchy/authority, period, can raise such sticky problems in communication and corporate epistemology, then let me ask this: What effect would granting power to accusations without evidence have? This is not an argument for the blanket elimination of accusations. Rather, it's an argument for the importance of *evidence."
https://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/15/the-wetware-crisis-the-...
"Clamming Up" because of power dynamics is inherent to hierarchy. This is why relationships with co-founders and employees need to be nurtured carefully. It's the same set of dynamics that happen inside a band.
If you always want candid advice, honest feedback, and critical though unpleasant information to flow freely and undistorted, then you must remember that actions speak louder than words. If someone tried to tell you something you really need to hear, though you may not have wanted to hear it, what did you do? How did you react? It's not enough to just say that you're for honesty and openness. It's not enough to say you value someone's opinion. You have to actually do that!
Did you counter-attack? Did you order your underling to never speak of "it" again? Did you use the differential in power to just shut-up and shut-off? If you were asked to give a detailed account of what the other person had to say, would they be satisfied that you gave a full and fair account of what they were trying to convey? Would you even be able to recall such details, or would your account be sketchy and vague?
Paying your employees well and having a great environment is actually a double-edged sword, here. What happens, if one day, your early employee comes to you with something they know you don't want to hear, and you react badly? What if you raise your voice and manage to make them feel threatened. That employee will get the message that, despite your lip-service, you don't want to hear it. What's that employee going to do? It's not too unlikely they will "get the message" and clam up, go with the flow, and play it safe to keep their cushy 6-figure job. The flow of candid information from that employee will drop by a lot!
Now, to bring things back to the semi-political: If just having hierarchy/authority, period, can raise such sticky problems in communication and corporate epistemology, then let me ask this: What effect would granting power to accusations without evidence have? This is not an argument for the blanket elimination of accusations. Rather, it's an argument for the importance of *evidence."