Many firms fail to pass bad news up the management chain, and suffer as a result, even though simple fixes have long been known: Wall Street Journal placed the blame for the “rot at GE” on former CEO Jeffrey Immelt’s “success theater,” pointing to what analysts and insiders said was a history of selectively positive projections, a culture of overconfidence and a disinterest in hearing or delivering bad news. …The article puts GE well out of its usual role as management exemplar. And it shines a light on a problem endemic to corporate America, leadership experts say. People naturally avoid conflict and fear delivering bad news. But in professional workplaces where a can-do attitude is valued above all else, and fears about job security remain common, getting unvarnished feedback and speaking candidly can be especially hard. …
Where I work, we have occasional 'town hall' meetings at which senior management will answer questions. The questions are submitted anonymously to an internal web site, where they are immediately visible and can be voted on by other employees.The questions are often critical, (and sometimes silly), and help us live our 'open company' value.
I don't think firm's themselves have much incentive to do so (to the degree "bad news" from labor inputs will materially affect share prices ouput from quarter to quarter in some way, more than say leveraged buybacks), but third party firms may have an incentive to provide the "bad news" boxes (i.e. services like glassdoor).
Maybe a more narrow focused glassdoor type platform (site/app/dapp) which employees could submit information (psuedoanoynmously like via autogen'd pub-private key sent over users corporate email) and give estimate or quote to the degree such information could negative impact a company and by when, and other parties can take a position (some how)? Employees get nothing if it turns out wrong (maybe also some kind of reputation system where that employee is marked down so people may be less inclined to take positions from their quotes in the future), while some percent of a positions gains" if it turns out "correct".
Good, but not the same as allowing anonymous criticism.
Where I work, we have occasional 'town hall' meetings at which senior management will answer questions. The questions are submitted anonymously to an internal web site, where they are immediately visible and can be voted on by other employees.The questions are often critical, (and sometimes silly), and help us live our 'open company' value.
I don't think firm's themselves have much incentive to do so (to the degree "bad news" from labor inputs will materially affect share prices ouput from quarter to quarter in some way, more than say leveraged buybacks), but third party firms may have an incentive to provide the "bad news" boxes (i.e. services like glassdoor).
Maybe a more narrow focused glassdoor type platform (site/app/dapp) which employees could submit information (psuedoanoynmously like via autogen'd pub-private key sent over users corporate email) and give estimate or quote to the degree such information could negative impact a company and by when, and other parties can take a position (some how)? Employees get nothing if it turns out wrong (maybe also some kind of reputation system where that employee is marked down so people may be less inclined to take positions from their quotes in the future), while some percent of a positions gains" if it turns out "correct".
To be fair, this box has major political ramifications in its own right.