In my experience, these are often leadership failures. Many people can generally understand competing priorities and prioritization, even if they might disagree with them. They often lack the context.
It's good to understand when to push and how much. It's also necessary for leaders to walk through why some things have to burn for a while because of resourcing trade-offs.
And I say this as a manager. This is part of my responsibility. I should be able to explain to everyone why we're saying no to what we are or, if there's new information from people who are squeaking, incorporating that and adjust direction.
I always understood the "nail that sticks up" as analogous to a "tall poppy" rather than a "squeaking wheel". I.e. someone who is too visibly doing well in an environment where everyone is supposed to be oppressed by staying buried in the wood.
I never head that understanding of the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I thought it was about the loudest/most obvious issues gets attention.
It is. The second sentence is describing a "tall poppy". My point is that I think the author is comparing metaphors that don't make sense to compare.
Isn't that the author's point?
> "But in one [metaphor], the object out of step gets beaten into submission, whereas the other gets its needs met and returns to functioning properly."
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
The late bird gets the second mouse.
Chinese: "The crying baby gets the milk."
The quacking duck gets shot.
The squeaking wheel gets replaced.
[flagged]