[wowamit]

> Their struggles are not your struggles anymore.

Though I agree with the larger point, there is a critical way to overcome that. The second line of leadership must own the culture at their team's level. This only works if you have direct access to the larger group. An open-door policy where anyone can schedule time with you is essential.

You might not understand their struggle, but you can hear and route it to the right people. Sometimes the best way to show empathy is simply to listen.

[Aurornis]

> An open-door policy where anyone can schedule time with you is essential.

In my experience, open door policies are necessary but not sufficient. If the policy is to wait for feedback to walk through your door you will only hear from the set of people motivated, willing, and trusting enough to do that.

You have to go out and ask everyone one by one the appropriate questions and also be willing to listen. I’ve been in some companies where feedback was requested but then the immediate reaction was to argue and deny any feedback given, which is a fast path to ensure people stop providing feedback.

[wowamit]

Agreed. Setting up structures for people to provide regular feedback is a must -- I believe this goes without saying. The only downside is that this cannot be done 1:1 with each person. Hence, enabling even the motivated few is a good trade-off. But sure, necessary but not sufficient.

At the same time, accepting and acting on feedback is a skill in its own right.

[Aurornis]

> The only downside is that this cannot be done 1:1 with each person.

That level of feedback can be done with individual managers and their reports, with occasional skip-level check ins.

I don’t actually thinking open door policies where, for example, the CEO of a large corporation is open to scheduling time with anyone who wants it could work for very long in an organization with 1000 people. I worked closely with the CEO of a company of that size that was growing. The number of ICs who attempted to send him emails and unsolicited reports trying to curry favor, get him to take their side in office politics, take credit for things, or even get their mangers in trouble was surprising to me. He made the mistake of publicly thanking a few people for bringing things to attention, which opened the floodgates for people seeing direct messages to the CEO as the highest leverage thing they could do in the office.

The direct feedback skipping too many levels just doesn’t work because the person receiving feedback doesn’t have the context necessary to interpret it. The reporters know this and will start twisting facts and details to fit the narrative they want to deliver.