Something I've noticed in workplace culture, is how often managers seem to believe that being in a position of authority automatically makes their judgment superior to that of their employees.
There's this underlying assumption that managers are always right, employees need constant correction, and questioning management is somehow a sign of disrespect or unprofessionalism.
But I've noticed something ironic: the people who are constantly preaching accountability, professionalism, and receptiveness to feedback are sometimes the worst at receiving criticism themselves.
I think a lot of this comes down to something called status threat.
In other words it's easy to scream and give feedback from your ivory tower seat-- and a lot harder to receive it. They may fear that too much feedback will circulate back to their own bosses and threaten their own seat.
When people move up the workplace hierarchy, they often gain more than just a higher salary. They gain privileges, flexibility, decision-making power, and a certain level of deference from those beneath them. Over time, I think some managers begin to associate these privileges with their personal worth and professional identity.
They start believing that their position has earned them unquestioned trust and respect, rather than recognizing that trust and respect are things they should continue to cultivate.
So when an employee offers constructive criticism, questions an inefficient policy, or challenges a decision, the manager doesn't necessarily evaluate the feedback on its merits. Instead, they perceive it as a threat to their authority.
Suddenly, the conversation isn't about whether the employee has a valid point. It's about whether the employee is being insubordinate, difficult, or unwilling to accept feedback.
It's almost as though managers expect humility from their employees while treating humility as something beneath their own position.
I also think there's a broader structural problem here. Managers are incentivized to preserve their status within the organization. They receive higher pay, greater privileges, and opportunities for advancement, so naturally, some become invested in defending the very hierarchy that benefits them.
This can create a culture of bootlicking, where managers become more concerned with pleasing upper management and demonstrating their own relevance than actually supporting the employees they're supposed to lead.
And sometimes that means micromanaging, enforcing arbitrary rules, or insisting on being involved in every decision because allowing employees too much independence might make their own role feel less essential.
The irony is that I think a genuinely good manager should be comfortable making themselves less necessary in their employees' day-to-day work by developing their independence and competence.
I'm not arguing that every manager is like this, or that employees are always right. Obviously, management involves making difficult decisions, and sometimes employees need correction.
But having the authority to make a decision is not the same as having the wisdom to make a good one.
Being someone's boss doesn't automatically make you more intelligent, more ethical, or more deserving of respect than the people you supervise.
If anything, I think the more power someone has over other people's livelihoods, the MORE accountable they should be to criticism, not less.
Has anyone else noticed this contradiction? Why do workplaces place so much emphasis on employees being receptive to feedback while often giving managers a free pass to be defensive, controlling, or dismissive when the feedback goes in the opposite direction?
