[solipsism]

We'll tell a higher-up why his new plan is stupid and that we're not very excited to waste our time it

I'm curious how this scales. In your culture, how do you deal with a thousand people in a company feeling comfortable telling the CEO how wrong he is? What happens when 500 people think one way and 500 think the other?

[jandrewrogers]

There are nuances to it. The criticism needs to be constructive and concrete. Saying “the new plan is stupid” without a coherent argument for why it is stupid won’t be listened to. If you have a credible, coherent argument you will be taken seriously by the CEO. However, offsetting this is the reality that in many parts of Europe that work like this there is a class consciousness — what will be taken seriously often needs to be on matters deemed appropriate to your perceived knowledge and ability. They don’t automatically trust that you have any idea of what you are talking about. It generally isn’t like voting on “rightness” or “wrongness”, it is about building a consensus on the true state of the world.

Lastly, you need to moderate your feedback because sometimes the CEO can take you too seriously! If you just lay out a coherent argument that something is stupid, it can look very dire to the CEO. Offering a thoughtful and slightly more optimistic alternative perspective can help a lot. I had to learn that I was unduly stressing CEOs in these situations, because they took the negative feedback seriously without proactively offering a counter-balancing optimistic scenario when that existed. The best approach is “this is won’t work but I have an idea”.

Even in cultures where this is considered normal, most people don’t do it, or don’t do it well. Constructive no-bullshit feedback is genuinely valued by CEOs at large companies. Being that person, which I naturally am, has been very high leverage across many large companies in my experience.

[krono]

It depends on the subject, how the CEO is known to react (perhaps the CEO is not from here), a trainee might hold back a little bit more, and more such factors do of course play a role.

Our organisational structures are generally just as flat as our landscape, which might help promote more opportunities for people to speak their minds to upper management. I don't have data on this though.

A distant relative of mine always said his business would have never started making money if it weren't for the Polish ladies who worked in his factory complaining so much about their work areas. He had his lunch in the general cafeteria together with everyone else whenever he could, and that is not uncommon here.

Edit: We also have a concept called "medezeggenschapsraad" or "ondernemingsraad" (depending on context), which is a kind of employee panel with decision making power that businesses of 50 employees and up are required to have. Unsure if this is unique to the Netherlands though.

[alexanderdmitri]

Not Dutch, but I imagine the CEO directly tells the 500 people who disagree to piss off.

[Okkef]

If 1000 people want to tell the CEO he is wrong, he'd better listen.

If there is a choice to be made, he should make it, explain it, and live it.

[agumonkey]

I guess it promotes CEOs that are actually right more often than not

[solipsism]

That assumes that the crowd is usually right. That's not my experience.

[watwut]

Being free to say what you think does not mean CEO will submissively follow all suggestions.