"Name and Shame" in Corporate Culture: Why It's Practiced and Better Alternatives

In my two decades of experience in the corporate world, I have connected and collaborated with numerous individuals with diverse natures, working styles, and leadership approaches. Over the years, certain behavior patterns and management tactics have stood out to me because of their distinct impact—both positive and negative—on individuals and teams. I’ve often thought about sharing my views on these approaches, and one such practice that has always caught my attention is the "name and shame" approach commonly used in the corporate world.

This strategy, where employees or teams are publicly called out for mistakes or underperformance, might seem effective at first glance, but it comes with significant downsides. While the intention is often to drive accountability and foster improvement, the long-term consequences for company culture and morale can be damaging. Many companies have recognized this and successfully moved away from "name and shame" toward more constructive, supportive practices.

In this article, I’ll explore why this approach is used, the challenges it creates, and how organizations can foster a positive, high-performance culture through better alternatives.

Why "Name and Shame" is Practiced

The "name and shame" approach is typically used with the belief that it can:

• Create urgency: Publicly calling out mistakes adds pressure to rectify performance issues quickly.
• Encourage transparency: Some leaders feel that openly addressing failures keeps everyone aware of where they stand and motivates others to avoid similar mistakes.
• Enforce discipline: Shaming employees is seen as a way to maintain standards by ensuring people stay focused and accountable.

However, this practice often stems from a control-heavy management style that favors authority and compliance over fostering creativity and ownership.

The Downsides of "Name and Shame"

While "name and shame" might achieve short-term results, its negative impacts are far-reaching:

• Damaged morale: Public criticism can demoralize employees, leading to disengagement and a toxic work environment.
• Fear of failure: Employees become risk-averse, fearing public humiliation. This limits creativity and stifles innovation.
• Broken trust: The divide between leadership and employees grows, eroding trust, which is essential for long-term success.
• Increased turnover: When employees feel publicly criticized or unsupported, they are more likely to leave, leading to higher recruitment and training costs.

What Leaders Aim to Achieve

The ultimate goal of "name and shame" is to drive performance and enforce accountability by creating an environment where the fear of public embarrassment compels employees to improve. However, while it may deliver results in the short term, the long-term costs of disengaged, fearful teams far outweigh the benefits.

Positive Alternatives to "Name and Shame"

Fortunately, many organizations have recognized that "name and shame" is a harmful approach and have moved to more constructive, empowering strategies. Here are some effective alternatives, backed by real-life examples of companies that have successfully embraced them:

1. Private Feedback with Coaching

Rather than shaming employees in public, private feedback combined with coaching offers a much more supportive way to address performance issues. It helps employees learn and grow, focusing on development rather than punishment.

Example: Microsoft, once known for its highly competitive stack ranking system, made a significant cultural shift under Satya Nadella’s leadership. Moving away from public performance rankings and towards a growth mindset, Microsoft focused on collaboration, feedback, and continuous learning, which transformed the company into a more innovative and supportive environment.

2. Recognizing Effort and Improvement

Acknowledging not just the results but also the effort and progress made can be incredibly motivating for employees. It fosters a culture where continuous improvement is celebrated, and failures are viewed as learning opportunities rather than reasons for public humiliation.

Example: Google’s Project Aristotle found that psychological safety was the key factor in high-performing teams. By creating an environment where employees felt safe to take risks and admit mistakes, Google fostered a culture of open communication, which led to greater innovation without the need for public shaming.

3. Team-based Problem Solving

When performance issues arise, focusing on team-based reflection and problem-solving can be far more effective than singling out individuals. This approach builds stronger teams and helps employees learn from mistakes together.

Example: At Atlassian, the company has embraced a blameless culture, where failures are seen as learning opportunities. By encouraging teams to share their challenges openly, Atlassian fosters a collaborative environment that drives innovation and collective improvement without fear of blame.

4. Fostering a Growth Mindset

A growth mindset encourages employees to view mistakes as opportunities to learn and improve. It creates a culture where employees feel empowered to take risks and innovate, knowing that failure is part of the journey rather than something to be feared.

Example: At Netflix, the focus is on freedom and responsibility. Employees are trusted to make decisions and learn from their experiences, with failure seen as a learning opportunity rather than a reason for public shaming. This has helped create a culture of autonomy, creativity, and continuous growth.

5. Regular Check-ins and Mentorship

Regular one-on-one check-ins with employees allow managers to address issues before they become major problems. Providing guidance and mentorship helps employees feel supported and enables them to grow in their roles.

Example: Pixar employs regular Braintrust meetings to give feedback on ongoing projects. These sessions are designed to offer constructive, collaborative feedback, allowing teams to improve their work without fear of blame or shame. This culture has contributed to Pixar’s success as a creative powerhouse.

6. Building Psychological Safety

Creating an environment where employees feel comfortable admitting mistakes and asking for help without fear of being shamed is crucial to building a high-performance culture. Psychological safety enables teams to take risks, innovate, and grow.

Example: Google made psychological safety a core value of its team culture. By encouraging employees to speak up, take risks, and share ideas without fear of punishment, the company has built some of the most innovative and successful teams in the world.

Conclusion

The "name and shame" approach, while intended to drive accountability, often does more harm than good. It may yield short-term results, but in the long run, it damages trust, stifles innovation, and weakens morale. The good news is that there are more positive, effective ways to hold people accountable and drive performance.

Organizations like Microsoft, Google, Netflix, Atlassian, and Pixar have demonstrated that fostering a growth mindset, encouraging psychological safety, and offering private, constructive feedback are far better strategies for building a strong, high-performing workforce.

Let’s move away from the culture of public blame and toward one of support, collaboration, and continuous improvement. By doing so, we not only achieve better results but also build stronger, more engaged teams.

Looking forward to your thoughts about it. Happy Weekend!