One of my favourite roles to play is devil's advocate.

I've done this in almost every organisation I've been a part of, though never as a formal role.

(If anyone wants to hire me to play this role, I'll be very happy to take it on).

Their response to my roleplay determines how invested I become in that organisation.

So far, the only ones I continue to be invested in have a few similar traits:

They are generally de-centralised, open, and have leaders who are, themselves, often "misunderstood" or unconventional.

In my view, the latter traits are highly desirable.

The other organisations, most of which I have either withdrawn from or exist in their books in name only, also have their own similar traits:

1) They pay lip service to innovation, but shut down new ideas that don't come from their inner circle(s).

Worse, some of them have inner circles who claim credit, but never give it.

2) They lament problems in their organisation, meeting after meeting, but never seem to get any closer to solving them.

This happens in spite of good suggestions and ground-up initiatives.

3) They give little to no support to anyone who's trying something new, and are quick to pounce on mistakes and teething problems.

It's not hard to guess whether the people trying things out continue to do so.

I could go on and on, but this post will turn into a rant. So, I'm going to stop the list here.

If you're in an organisation that exhibits these traits, are you still with them? Why / why not?

I'd love to hear from you, especially about how you handle(d) the situation(s).