zlacker

>>etc-ho+(OP)
It's fascinating to me the extent to which executives don't consider themselves "public figures" when it comes to potential downsides, but they do in terms of upsides.

It feels so obvious to me that the CEO of such a high-profile org should at the very least quickly check public-facing social media posts against someone sensible, if not laundering them all through the experts at their org. But somehow they keep making these mistakes over and over again.

>>BobaFl+84
I've worked for several big companies where the CEO wanted people to ask tough questions at big meetings from the rank and file and so on. Front line managers had to prompt employees to ask question so it wasn't just awkward silence.

It's telling executives would think people would just ask tough questions on demand. It of course costs the CEO nothing to provide everyone else at the company tough questions / feedback, employees though need to consider their words carefully depending on who at a company is listening as there can be real consequences.

It's one of those things that I'm sure seems like it makes the executive look "open", but rather it just shows their ignorance / are out of touch with the life of a rando worker.

Not a surprise that kind of unawareness leaks out of the workplace as they operate in a space where they are often relatively free to speak their mind.

>>duxup+Aa
The other thing is, there's no guarantee that a CEO that genuinely wants the rank and file to ask tough questions still won't instantly fire someone for the wrong tough question. Some CEOs are all about wanting to be challenged and pushed back by their employees until someone accidentally hits a nerve on a bad day, and there's very little recourse for most employees in the US if they get fired because they pissed off the executives.

>>BobaFl+vd
Yes, this. It's a clear and obvious trap.