The most obvious reason, in my mind, is that merely proposing a decision is enough to be a problem. Suggesting we're killing a project a dev has spent months on, or moving someone to another team, or saying we'll miss a major KPI, or not promoting someone aren't things you can have a public full-team review on. Just knowing the manager was considering it is enough to upset people.

If someone writes code that has an error in it, you maybe think a bit worse of them, but it's a learning opportunity and that's what the review is for. If your manager suggests a course of action that you deeply disagree with, that's hard for them to come back from.

But thats politics. Look at every railway, roadway, power station - always supported or opposed by various factions. We think it’s actually healthy for our society, so why is it bad on the scale of companies - some of whom have larger GDP than some countries

Having political discussions out in the open is - I hold as an axiom - a positive on balance.

This who are “upset” about things - well they are adults in a political society - they can understand the issues. Do they feel exposed / vulnerable ? Maybe there is a political solution to thinking you have two weeks notice and that’s all the protection

I think it’s worth having decisions openly debated - otherwise we are blessing an elite and frankly hoping they will get it right.

The survival rate of companies suggests they might not be