[mbesto]

The trend outlined in the article is that startups tend to ditch openness once they mature. I think the explanation is pretty simple - it's no longer a marketing advantage to do so. If your'e selling to a startup audience then being open gets you eyeballs early on in your career. Once you start moving into more mature markets, this becomes less interesting to those audiences so why do it? It's hard enough to be open within a company, I can't imagine the operational overhead to do this externally.

[crawfordcomeaux]

A reason to keep doing it is to maintain the value of openness within the internal culture through praxis. If it was only being done for marketing purposes, then it wasn't ever a value, but a strategy.

[clintonb]

You maintain the value of openness within internal culture by being open with internal employees. Making the information public is a bonus for the public.

[crawfordcomeaux]

"We share openly in the family, but keep everything in the family" is a recipe for disaster, whether it be in a household or office. It's incongruent and breaks equanimity. It pedestals the employees over others.

[mbesto]

Value are marketing.

[crawfordcomeaux]

Values are marketable. Culture exists and values are a defining aspect of it. Now, if people are masking and performing the cultural values instead of authentically embodying, then there's a separation between stated values and operational values