3 ms·
I don't follow your thinking at all. You're assuming that the truth is always so horrible that management can never fully reveal it, and your not accounting fo
by dasil003 10y ago
I don't follow your thinking at all. You're assuming that the truth is always so horrible that management can never fully reveal it, and your not accounting for the whiff of secrecy and gossip that can be much worse than the actual withheld information.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoPerhaps its because I've been at more failed companies than most? Regardless of transparency vs secrecy, you reach a tipping point where the situation "feels" dire enough that employees leaving accelerates. I'm sure it depends on the demographics of the org, employees with families, mortgages, etc are willing to stick out volatility far less (in my experience) than employees with no obligations. Anecdotal of course! I'd love to have more data on this to find out what that tipping point is.
- dasil003 10y agoI agree with everything you said. But it doesn't address why you think secrecy is always necessary.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoIf you work because you need a job, and your company is transparent, and its in a financially precarious state, why would you stay?
- dasil003 10y agoIn this case though, the graph shows that the layoffs are bringing Buffer to profitability. If they kept that secret and just told the employees not to worry, they would be just as likely to assume that management was merely decreasing the burn, in which case their assumption would be worse than reality. Secrecy cuts both ways.
- st3v3r 10y agoI fail to see what the problem is here.