One of the more surprising reactions to OPM’s recently proposed nondisclosure agreement rule is the suggestion that asking employees to keep sensitive internal deliberations confidential is somehow shocking or unprecedented.

Spoiler alert: it’s not.

In fact, this is Organizational Management 101.

Every well-functioning organization, whether it’s a startup, Fortune 500 company, nonprofit, law firm, university, or government agency, depends on the ability to have candid internal discussions about strategy, policy, personnel, operations, and decision-making.

There’s a reason this principle is embedded throughout federal law. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), pre-decisional deliberations are generally protected from disclosure because organizations work better when people can debate ideas openly and honestly before a final decision is made. If every brainstorming session, disagreement, or draft proposal is instantly leaked into public view, people stop speaking candidly. Collaboration suffers. Decision-making suffers. Organizations become slower, more political, and less effective.

Put differently: you cannot run a functional organization if employees believe internal deliberations will immediately be broadcast outside the organization.

And contrary to some headlines, this proposal does not eliminate whistleblower protections. If someone witnesses illegal conduct, fraud, abuse, or misconduct, longstanding whistleblower laws remain fully intact. Protected disclosures are protected disclosures.

What this proposal addresses is something entirely different: the increasingly common practice of leaking sensitive operational information, personnel information, or confidential pre-decisional discussion. This happens for any number of reasons, from political disagreement to personal relationships to outright malice.

Over the last several years, we’ve seen repeated leaks involving sensitive law enforcement operations, confidential internal deliberations, and even the personal information of government employees. In some cases, leaks have jeopardized operational security or placed public servants and law enforcement personnel at risk.

We’ve seen leaks involving planned immigration enforcement operations, disclosures of confidential operational details before actions occurred, and the release of personal information belonging to thousands of federal law enforcement personnel. Those kinds of disclosures don’t just create internal management problems, they can directly undermine agency missions and put public servants at risk.

At a basic level, employees entrusted with sensitive information should be expected to handle that information responsibly.

And to be clear, the federal government is hardly inventing some new standard here. In much of the private sector, employees routinely sign confidentiality agreements as a condition of access to sensitive business information, customer data, intellectual property, or strategic planning discussions. The idea that organizations require a degree of confidentiality to function effectively is not radical, it’s the norm.

Even the Supreme Court recently instituted nondisclosure agreements for employees following a series of high-profile leaks of confidential internal deliberations. That alone should tell you this is not a novel concept.

We want agencies to foster robust internal debate and encourage employees to bring forward ideas, concerns, and expertise. But you cannot create an open and honest deliberative process if participants believe internal discussions will simply be leaked whenever someone dislikes the direction of the conversation.

Well-functioning organizations require trust. This proposal helps reinforce it.