Thank you for writing this, Jos! Sadly, I think you are absolutely right with regards to the punishment / reward setup for speaking up for most people in the corporate world. I think it is fascinating how strange this setup is: the company would last (a lot) longer if it listened to people and made changes, but some of those in power would lose their positions (or some of the rewards) in the short term, so they do everything possible to maintain the status quo. So, maybe we are giving people too much power and/or paying them too much? Maybe this is just a variant of Peter’s principle: people get promoted to the level where all of their energy is focused on keeping their job (and no energy is left for doing anything actually positive)?
I have seen a couple of exceptions of very senior individual contributors who get away with speaking up. They are usually connected all the way to the top and are untouchable because of the value they bring. These people’s reward system is different: they are neither rewarded or punished for speaking up. They do get “feedback” from people/teams/orgs whose flaws/mistakes they point out, so they are feared and disliked behind the scenes by many. Most people who achieve such status become political and drive their own agenda or just keep their head down and hold on to their chair. If you are lucky to come across somebody who is focused on the company mission for real, they can bring a lot of value to the organization.
I think its similar to "I bought a car and now I see that car everywhere". As I moved up the ranks, I wondered why no one spoke up (saw it more). And then I realized, I was the one that should have. Now I know. But I'm still trying to find the balance.
Thank you for writing this, Jos! Sadly, I think you are absolutely right with regards to the punishment / reward setup for speaking up for most people in the corporate world. I think it is fascinating how strange this setup is: the company would last (a lot) longer if it listened to people and made changes, but some of those in power would lose their positions (or some of the rewards) in the short term, so they do everything possible to maintain the status quo. So, maybe we are giving people too much power and/or paying them too much? Maybe this is just a variant of Peter’s principle: people get promoted to the level where all of their energy is focused on keeping their job (and no energy is left for doing anything actually positive)?
I have seen a couple of exceptions of very senior individual contributors who get away with speaking up. They are usually connected all the way to the top and are untouchable because of the value they bring. These people’s reward system is different: they are neither rewarded or punished for speaking up. They do get “feedback” from people/teams/orgs whose flaws/mistakes they point out, so they are feared and disliked behind the scenes by many. Most people who achieve such status become political and drive their own agenda or just keep their head down and hold on to their chair. If you are lucky to come across somebody who is focused on the company mission for real, they can bring a lot of value to the organization.
Will stay here even if just for the no bridges talk ;-)
I think its similar to "I bought a car and now I see that car everywhere". As I moved up the ranks, I wondered why no one spoke up (saw it more). And then I realized, I was the one that should have. Now I know. But I'm still trying to find the balance.