Explicit organizational warnings against information sharing produced chilling effects that were then punished

Evidence

In the case of 9/11 intelligence, moreover, the leadership of the FBI, wittingly or not, may have aided and abetted the process of institutionalizing such counterproductive role constraints by cautioning agents that “too much information sharing could be a career stopper” (p. 79, emphasis added). Such cautions could hardly help but have a chilling effect on individuals’ willingness to engage in extensive cooperative initiatives on their own. In fact, individuals who did so were often sanctioned for their efforts (cf., Weiss, 2003). — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1985

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the ‘information as commons’ framing across this book and to Milgrom on how institutions shape information exchange; also resonates with the sacrifice/ritual theme of how leadership words structure subordinate action.
• SEED: Essay angle: how explicit managerial warnings (‘that’ll be a career stopper’, ‘don’t rock the boat’) act as informal institutions that kill the information commons — and how to count their true organizational cost.
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: how widespread was the actual practice of sanctioning FBI agents who shared information pre-9/11, and what specific cases (like Coleen Rowley’s) exemplify it?