Step 1: Leader at some upper level of company's hierarchy comes up with an initiative/task force/drive. This particular idea is not the greatest idea in the world, and creates a lot of problems, headaches, and trouble for everyone downstream of them in the hierarchy, and ultimately, is detrimental to the company
Step 2: Most everyone downstream right away can see the issues and are not thrilled, but, among these people who are not thrilled, some just stay silent and go along, and the rest feign/fake excitement, support, and start “cheerleading” the project.
A few people tactfially, and a few not so tactfully, voice their concerns and/or displeasure. These people are given the run-around by leaders from the upper leader on down, with them talking around the issues and not really addressing any concerns, or pulling the ole handwaving off the problem, and maybe even go as far as to subtly call out, attack, and/or bully these “dissenters.” The dissenters also begin to be subtly and quietly punished and possibly also ostracized by their immediate superiors and peers (this punishment and ostracization is a big reason why people are afraid to speak their minds in meetings)
Step 3: People downstream of the upper level leader suffer for 2 weeks, or a month, or 6 months. The company is negatively impacted
The people who go along with the bad idea, regardless of their merit and fit for any promotions, are more likely to get raises and to get promoted, and also be treated warmly by their peers, etc, and the “dissenters”, regardless of their merit and fit for any promotions, are more likely to not get promoted and not get raises, and not be treated warmly by their their peers. Rinse and repeat.
The moral of the story: Being a team player even if the team is about to walk off a cliff, is incentivized over being a team player as long as the ideas are sound, but not joining the group when they are about to walk off a cliff and trying warn everyone else that they are about to walk off a cliff
It seems smart, shrewd leaders would realize that it's better for people to be honest, and be team players as long as the ideas are good, but then voice concerns (tactfully of course) when the ideas are not good (and to take a step further, this smart, shrewd leader would intentionally float a few bad ideas to test their subordinates and see if they just go with the flow, or are willing to speak up)
It seems that they would want to foster and facilitate an environment that incentivizes people being team players instead of fostering and facilitating an environment that incentivizes people going with the flow even when ideas are bad in order to be seen as team players, and punishing “dissenters” even when the dissent is expressed tactfully
In theory, one possible explanation for this is that leaders want people who are loyal and who won't stab them in the back, but this seems flawed to prioritize this over honesty and merit, because people can act like they are loyal but secretly are not, and because even genuine loyalty can change tomorrow, for any reason. So, if loyalty may not even exist with some of your subordinates despite them acting outwardly like they are, and loyalty can shift instantly for the rest of your subordinates who are genuinely loyal, why not prioritize honesty and merit?
You see this corporate disease to an extreme in dictatorships and cults…
Most of the leaders I've seen were generally speaking, capable leaders. Some were great, some were good, and some could have been better leaders, but most were at least capable. Most were also at least moderately intelligent and had social awareness/skills and also common sense. I would also say most of them were fairly smart and “with it” to different degrees. Almost none were just god-awful leaders and/or left you saying “Jesus, that dude is an idiot.”
Maybe I'm just giving people too much credit, but if most leaders are at least semi-capable and smart, why does what I talk about in this post seem to be the norm in human organizations? It seems to me like this is dysfunctional behavior.
If a father who runs a corporation is preparing his son to take over, what is the reason the father gives the son for why he should prioritize loyalty even when the ideas are bad and regardless of merit, over honesty and merit?