3 ms·

> The free exchange of information is more appealing and less threatening when you have more information processing capability to begin with. I struggle to get

• P0l83q4p1Hw3Ul 4y ago
  Yes. Just look at the "words are violence" alphabet people.
• j-bos 4y ago
  I've noticed that it's hard to feel threatened when someone you trust says something you don't understand. Can imagine the reverse to be true.
• faeriechangling 4y ago
  Well yes, why wouldn't they be? It's to their advantage that nobody talks if they are not very good at talking. Lets imagine a workplace with two teams with two not very intelligent leaders, and two intelligent up and comer. One team leader goes "I'm open for suggestion, talk to other teams, talk to my boss" and he's replaced in a year. The other boss goes "We need to enforce a hierarchy, only juniors speak to seniors, only seniors speak to me, only I speak to other teams" he might have that job for YEARS as the other managers go "wow that guy suddenly started delivering results and I thought he was dumb, I guess I was wrong". If you imagine both team leaders are smart, than the smart team leader who allowed open communication will probably outperform the one who didn't since they're not threatened by the junior regardless. If you're not very smart, coming up with ways to make people less free to speak can show wisdom.