I'll make up an inane and unproven theory too: Orgs that have leaders that shit all over its employees have large turnover, thus diffusing insider knowledge far and wide. It's a good thing for the world to have leaders be this way.
> I'll make up an inane and unproven theory too: Orgs that have leaders that shit all over its employees have large turnover, thus diffusing insider knowledge far and wide.
I see a hint of underlying logic in this part, though the theory needs more thought put into it. Two comments:
1. Try to quantify the harm to people that get "shit all over". Some portion suffer personally and professionally, which leads to the organization who is 'next in line' having to carry some of that burden.
2. Try to quantify the value in the "insider" knowledge being shared here according to such a theory. Some might be technical, fair enough. But a lot of it is likely related to how much of a jerk that boss was... Remember, not all information has a net positive value for a given time scale. For example, information about a previous toxic workplace may increase anxiety and hurt trust -- and in many cases, such information is often not net positive.
> It's a good thing for the world to have leaders be this way.
No. Not broadly (since there is no mention of harm) and not even in a narrow sense.
Consider the kinds of leaders who help their employees grow so that:
(a) knowledge is shared far and wide internally
(b) employees grow into new roles, some outside of the company
No my theory is garbage, totally unproven and not supported by any data. The point I'm trying to make is that the OP's is the same. I guess I could have just said citation needed.
