Well reasoned as always, Harold.

I've worked 25 plus years in the workforce and have seen both democratic and dictatorial models of leadership.

Your 'Russian company' analogy is spot on. One of my better bosses saw value in public debate and would hold team meetings to encourage it. This would sometimes spill over to employees passionately attacking the boss's policy positions. And yet he didn't take it personally and held the view that it made the company stronger. I've also had the opposite--plenty of toxic bosses with very thin skins who were not above using their position of power to punch down on any employees who dared to disagree, despite being paid handsome management level salaries. I was frankly surprised to see James in his piece to say this is a 'well-deserved' tactic and behavior for bosses to take revenge on dissenting employees. It struck me as being a major blind spot and inspired this piece. Curiously, James in the comments has said this is "brave" of me to write and will be writing a "fun" rebuttal. Why is it 'brave' to debate about this subject?

He also made a false equivalence between my finding no 'satire' tag on his story with my earlier debate about whether editors should be demanding writers to change the message, moral, and point of a writer's submission. I suspect he is taking something personally and is now trying to deflect. I always try to stick to the subject matter of the debate and not make things personal. I know in the comments of your piece he accused you of taking things personally and warning you to chill out lest you become old and bitter. And yet I found nothing emotional in your argument--it was very well reasoned and balanced. That also struck me as a deflection.

Anyway, take care, and keep weighing in on this debate.