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.
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.
Then they dropped voting when the questions got too real.
Then they lit up the staff by saying, “If you don’t like being here, then leave!”
Then they stopped taking questions and went back to fireside chat monologs that offered no real information.
One of the many Dilbertian experiences in my career.
I once accused a VP of creating an environment of “opaque transparency” in a large staff meeting… nobody laughed, though I got lots of private kudos after the meeting.
Much of the corporate world is smoke and mirrors. That’s the nature of the game unfortunately.