| > suddenly culture A breaks down because people in power get upset and then abuse their power. This is a great point! In power relationship, "culture A" is often one-sided. The boss says whatever he wants, and he boasts about an environment of openness or whatever. But the employees know that if they tried the same, they would get fired. So this only adds an insult to injury, not only you have to endure the manners of your boss, you also have to pretend that everything is okay and symmetric, when it obviously is not. (When your boss insists that there is no hierarchy and everyone can freely speak their mind, this is your last warning to shut up. Hint: In genuinely safe environments, you usually don't need to remind people regularly that the environment is safe; they already know, based on their previous experience and observations. So if the boss doth protest too much...) On the other hand, I believe it is perfectly safe to talk back to Linus Torvalds. In this case, the "culture A" really is symmetric. Ironically, the reason he is attacked is because it is safe to attack him. (If you need to publicly provide an example of toxic behavior, it is safer to name Linus than someone who could actually punish you for doing so.) In real, I suppose almost no one would be a "culture A" or "culture B" absolutist. When Bob says something to James and James starts crying... most people would ask what exactly Bob said, and decide accordingly. I suspect people usually want context-less rules if they plan to abuse them. If you enjoy bullying people, you have an incentive to promote "culture A"; if you enjoy playing victim and blackmailing emotionallly, you have an incentive to promote "culture A". Otherwise, you will probably agree that some things are okay and some are not okay, even if we wouldn't agree on where exactly the line is. |