Can you reasonably expect for there to be a true “safe space” in a professional setting? It’s always good to be candid and transparent, but I’d never assume I’m in a complete safe space no matter which organization I am in.
My experience has generally been that, even if a leadership level person is being sincere when they say they want honest feedback and it is safe to offer it, the junior level person they are meeting with doesn't believe it. (An economist would call this an example of the "market for lemons" problem.) That is a big reason why outside consultants can break the ice on something like this, as the article describes, where internal conversations can't: the consultant can credibly promise that honest feedback won't adversely affect the speaker (the obvious way to do that is to not attribute anything to any particular person when the consultant reports to leadership), so they have a shot at actually getting the honest feedback that is needed to get to a solution to the problem.
Of course there are companies where consultants do not have this happy outcome--either because management doesn't listen to the feedback even from the consultant, or because the consultant does what you describe and doesn't protect the working level people who confided in them. But the article indicates that this doesn't have to happen, and that was my point: as I said, the consultant has a shot at getting to a solution of the problem.
Yes, and if the consultant fails, s/he's off to the next gig. The author did not mention any cases where his approach failed.
The author also says "One week later, I will schedule a meeting with executive leadership, and during that meeting, I will read back a very lightly edited version of the transcript of the previous meeting"
Dandy. If one has a recognizable voice - style, usage, etc. - it will be recognized. And dealt with.
I don't think the solutions he's presenting will "scale." He says "[if you need] event-driven distributed systems consensus algorithm implemented using Twisted, I’m absolutely your guy." He's a young guy with a pretty narrow niche and is making some pretty big claims for a large world outside of it.
Quite the opposite. One of the reasons people go into consulting (and I don't mean working for a consulting company), is precisely because they're not beholden to them. They have much more freedom to set the terms than employees do.
If a company wants them to reveal the individual, they'll be happy to give them the middle finger and let them know their morals are lacking.
Someone who thinks they will protect you may be as big of a wildcard as someone who demonstrates clearly that they won't, because you haven't given anything really damning to the latter.
There are bosses who get violently angry and fire people. Nobody will trust that boss with honest feedback... ever.
There are the bosses who are simply dismissive of what their staff is already telling them. In that case, the boss is having this meeting to tell his staff "I ignored and forgot everything you told me previously, but this time will be different. I'm prepared to listen this time." That boss may be able to make good on the strategy in the article.
Few people continually remind you of the places where you are disappointing them. They've said it a dozen times, they know it's pointless to say it again. Which complicates things because now what you think they are upset with you about are either entirely not the real reasons, or are just proxies for them. But you already fucked up that channel of communication.
Then I sold the startup and worked at Google for 6 years.
1 out of 4 managers hit the bar that I figured would be a floor, you could have a constructive conversation with them and they'd help you if something was up.
Trying to mold people who did not want to be molded resulted in a lot of Pyrrhic victories.
It's nice here, and the people including management are great.
But I feel I should probably move on for the sake of my career progression, but I'm scared to leave and find myself somewhere worse.
In theory, skills are what matter, but I don't find that true in practice. Appearance matters more. A long tenure is a good look to most.
I've had one favorite boss get fired, and at least two leave (forced out/encouraged to go) because they agreed with us but their peers or boss didn't. Agreeing with them is fine until it isn't, and then you're a collaborator.
And then there's agreeing with the VP or CTO, but the people between you don't, and try to suppress your enthusiasm. If you go over their heads it better be to get transferred to another team instead of trying to change things in place, because now you're squeezing them and they will retaliate.
heh, been there. Sometimes I feel sorry for those that high up, especially the ones that DO mostly see the problems but are powerless to do much because of all the shit between them and the solution.
The higher up you go the more power you have but the less control you have. That seems paradoxical but consider the old adage 'if you want something done right, do it yourself'. You may have the power to hire and fire but have little control over the day-to-day decisions that matter.
It's certainly possible to have it on a personal relationship basis - with coworkers or a boss, but broadly? Impossible. If someone wants to take you down, then your "honesty" is going to be used against you.