That trust should not rely on people having to censure themselves all the time, since that would be harmful for an organization's performance in the long run. And a lot comes down to how that criticism is delivered.
Self-censorship is a natural part of social interactions; it's what allows us to navigate complex relationships and maintain harmony in a workplace. Consider all those intrusive thoughts you’ve had—the ones you chose not to voice because they were inappropriate or would create conflict. Our ability to filter what we say is key to functioning in social settings.
It's like a skill we take for granted. When you see people with certain mental disabilities who can't regulate their words, it quickly makes you realize why self-censorship matters. It's a critical tool for keeping things from descending into chaos.
The question isn't whether self-censorship is necessary, but rather, how much is appropriate. I shared the example of someone who revealed a boss's affair during a team meeting. It was a moment of impulsiveness that led to serious career consequences, to put it mildly.
I understand self-censorship, white lies, and similar social constructs are crucial so that people can get along at all, but sometimes it's important to be able to ruffle some feathers without fear of repercussions, for the benefit of the whole organisation. The Emperor's New Clothes and all that.
That ability goes out the window once all communication is written down verbatim because now people can point fingers and have a grudge with each others for years.
Now, that affair with the receptionist is really HR's problem, and it's just great for one's prospects at the company to inconsiderately flame on the boss' way of doing things (not!). But somehow it should be possible to criticize things without having to join management at the golf club or at pub crawl...
