>'Open Communication'
One of previous companies had this as a value. It was a startup, 5 engineers and the VP. You were expected to give honest critical feedback as well as positive, and were expected to receive both critical and positive feedback. It actually worked really well. There wasn't any politics, just people trying to become better engineers and deliver a quality product.
Over a couple years we grew to 15-20 engineers, and devolved in to people writing multi-page emails to the VP, criticizing their colleagues (minor, or hard-to-measure things like "they don't refactor enough", or "they're happy writing poor quality code". Colleagues found out, and weren't happy a pier went behind they're back to criticize them to their manager. The VP didn't do anything, "Open Communication" was a core value, how can communicating problems be bad?
Moral of the story is, even when a company has a good value, it still doesn't really tell you anything about them. All it takes one person to abuse it for their own gain, and a manager who can tell the difference, and it all falls apart.