I've had former manager "correct" my openness to external partners. In those few cases, they never questioned why I had an open exchange, what I get from such or any explanation of benefits from closing down communication. Feedback and judgement may come from wrong or misunderstood context, so sometimes, someone might later admit a different approach was prudent.<p>Professional behaviour doesn't necessarily mean being a dick or hoarding information. In my book, this is playing the organization worse off. You yourself might be better off, to the detriment of everyone else around you. This I view as unprofessional, becoming of some external consultants, not regular employees in a supportive organization.<p>Feedback should not name people. You might name roles or groups instead, preferably just state events as they factually happened, without pointing blame or fingers. What happened happened, and now we deal with that. Just assume people are learning on the job. Some people take things too hard by default, so instead reassure them the company is coping as a business.<p>Sometimes, information is illegal to share, or when personal or too much detail, it is oversharing. But in general, sharing information is a safety net. People work better and do better, when provided enough context to thrive. To know the difference, you must put yourself in other people's roles, what they should know and not. If you overshare technical details, some people will become uneasy, so you share what they are comfortable knowing. Some people abuse information, so they need less information to abuse.<p>To "correct" someone, first make sure you know their intentions and why they did as they did. It's not about being right or wrong always. Treat people as you'd want to be respected. Assume that, given new information, people continually learn or casually, mention good learning resources. Your best efforts won't make others learn. The best teachers let other people draw their own conclusions.<p>Empathy