Instead of fostering the kind of dialogue in the boardroom that has in part contributed to our success, the board has inappropriately chosen to silence my concerns through termination as an executive officer.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Many CEOs and leaders think that silence is indeed golden, that consensus is bliss. It is - sometimes. But more often what it signifies is that there are no respected processes for surfacing concerns and dissent.
Board meetings should not be for the benefit of the board. They should be for the benefit of the CEO and the senior team.
It is not necessary, nor appropriate, to sow dissent and misrepresent employees or constantly to threaten industrial action.
Every organization has issues and concerns which are known about by many people who choose to remain silent.
Talk that does not end in any kind of action is better suppressed altogether.
When political leaders fail to denounce anti-Semitic violence and slurs, the void is not only demoralizing to the victims, but silence actually enables the wrongdoing. Silence by elected officials in particular conveys approval - or at least acquiescence - and can contribute to a climate of fear and a sense of vulnerability.
I think the silences we have on some issues are inductive of the fact that we need to write about them more, but I think there are some issues you have to write in a sensitive way and in a way that respects the reality of the situation. If you can't do that, you should leave them alone.
Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence.
Executives can no longer hide behind the corporate veil. They need to be accountable for what their companies do, because entities are responsible for socially irresponsible behavior.
I am rather inclined to silence.