* In a healthy team, you ideally shouldn't need special skills to disagree with someone more powerful than you.
* But it's very common for teams to have some degree of egotism and dysfunction, so these are useful skills in practice.
* But on the other hand, this article normalizes that egotism and dysfunction; it implies that the less-powerful person is responsible for working around the more-powerful person's ego, instead of the more-powerful person being responsible for keeping their ego in check.
So even though it's useful advice for the individuals reading it, it subtly erodes the culture of the industry as a whole. And I want to push back on that. If you're in a position of power, it's your responsibility to make sure that people working with you don't need special skills to disagree with you or with other people on the team!
There’s a difference between what should be and what is. Taking your ball and going home isn’t necessarily the right path.
Case in point: I was working as a contractor and SME for a big organization where the senior leadership was disconnected from reality for reasons that don’t matter. I don’t give a hoot about the culture. I’m there to do a job, and if I’m successful, my company probably gets more business, and we do something really amazing. If I fail, it costs me money and political/reputation capital.
As is often the case, the issue was that perceptions and misunderstanding caused the issue. Once we were able to relate the issue in the right way, most of the disconnect went away.
People are people and you need to play to their needs. Many executives are very insecure, for example, and have a bunch of tools at hand to detect and eliminate threats. We’ve evolved to do this… kids will appeal to mom, dad, grandpa in different ways to achieve the same ends.
> There’s a difference between what should be and what is.
Yes. For example, ideally less-powerful people should have great interpersonal skills and would always phrase their insights in exactly the way that more-powerful people prefer to hear them. But in reality, they don't always have that level of interpersonal skills. So in order for more-powerful people to hear the important information, they need to be open to hearing it in ways that aren't exactly how they'd prefer to hear it.
> Taking your ball and going home isn’t necessarily the right path.
Yes. For example, if a manager is offended by how one of their employees raised a disagreement, criticizing that employee isn't necessarily be the right path. A better path might be for the manager to swallow their ego and listen to the concerns that are being raised.
> People are people and you need to play to their needs.
Yes. For example, less-powerful people are people, and more-powerful people need to play to their needs in order for the team to operate in the most healthy way.
To put it a different way: In healthy organizations, people with more power are expected to have better interpersonal skills, and to work well with less-powerful people who have merely average interpersonal skills. But in some organizations, powerful people are egotistic and less-powerful people are expected to work around their egos. These organizations don't function as well; average employees often don't have the special interpersonal skills necessary to work around a boss's ego, and so e.g. good ideas get lost because the boss doesn't want to hear them. If you're unfortunate enough to be an employee in one of those organizations, then the skills in this article are certainly valuable to know. But if you're a person with the power to influence the culture of an organization, you should avoid creating that kind of culture.
> To put it a different way: In healthy organizations, people with more power are expected to have better interpersonal skills, and to work well with less-powerful people who have merely average interpersonal skills.
On average. No reason that everyone can't have great interpersonal skills though - they're really useful in a professional and personal context. The techniques to influence someone from a position of weakness are exactly the ones for personal relationships too because they are gentle and work well over the long term.
That being said, I think this HBR article is questionable advice. This is a random list of tactics that won't work without some sort of framework to link them strategically. The important thing is relation management, not how one disagreement plays out.
Advising someone is a slightly different skill from taking advice from someone, and those are both slightly different skills from building consensus among equals.
Hierarchies have different lines between "things I can change" and "things I can't change" for different positions. Arguing with your boss over something that's in their "things I can't change" bucket is maybe not so useful.
> If you're in a position of power, it's your responsibility to make sure that people working with you don't need special skills to disagree with you or with other people on the team!
Or alternatively, to make sure they have opportunities to acquire those skills.
> Or alternatively, to make sure they have opportunities to acquire those skills.
I think it depends what level of interpersonal skills we're talking about. If we're talking about baseline interpersonal skills like "being polite" and "understanding the other person's position before disagreeing with it", then I agree it's appropriate to hold the less-powerful person responsible for acquiring those skills.
But some of the tips in this article are more advanced, next-level skills that can be difficult to develop. And even with these skills, there's no guarantee of success if the more-powerful person is too egotistical. A failure mode I've seen is that the less-powerful person is actually being polite and reasonable, but the more-powerful person's manager doesn't want to hold them accountable for their egotism, so the manager says the less-powerful person needs to work on their interpersonal skills instead. (Related: https://lethain.com/hard-to-work-with/)
People will never be perfect, and being able to work with that is an important skill. Besides, most of this material is basic good communication that can be applied with anyone. The stakes are just higher with your boss than your peer.
> If you're in a position of power, it's your responsibility to make sure that people working with you don't need special skills to disagree with you or with other people on the team!
The people that already agree with this don’t need to hear it, and the people that don’t will never listen if you try to tell them (that enormous ego).
My experience is that people in technical jobs (like many people on HN) work on teams where facts and logic dictate how things are done. People are free to speak their minds as long as they say reasonable things. I think this is the case because work like engineering tends to have clear requirements and you can more easily argue about how to meet them.
I've worked more and more with non-technical teams, where the end of the goal of the work is not as clear cut. On those teams, people speak up less and authority by title is a lot more important. I think this is because there is not necessarily a right or wrong approach to a lot of the things they work on (or at least they don't see it that way) so arguments are less logical and feel more like ego trips or power struggles.
This may not be 100% accurate, but my main point is that technical people probably don't have a clear picture of this power struggle scenario from the pov of non-technical people. It's just a very different work environment.
I feel you, totally. I also feel the same about many many other subjets, revolving around 'mordern' corporate culture.
Take recruitment, for example: if the candidate has the required degrees, experience and skills, recruiters or companies don't need to go through loads of interviews, tests, forms to fill, and so on. Candidates don't need to play guess games, find out what exact word or sysnonym they're expected to say/write, resort to sacrifice to the gods /s, etc.
>But on the other hand, this article normalizes that egotism and dysfunction; ...
If the advice is useful then the egotism and dysfunction are already normalized and your conflicted reaction is more about justifying denial than anything productive.
Tbh I read ops advise almost like an endorsement for a self defence course. Bigger, stronger people shouldn’t punch us in the face and take our things — but they sometimes do, so you should learn how to hold your own.
I'm finding that more and more I'm just starting to agree with people in power because I've realized that in the end it's not my money on the line anyway and arguing just isn't worth it.
You want to use Redis as our primary db? Great idea, boss. You think tests violate DRY and you don't want me to write any? Sir, you're a genius.
In the hydro electric power industry I work in I find that only people paid to have the responsibility and liability for the results of decisions are the ones that make them. If a call has environmental impacts, or safety of human life is in question people are
Pretty quick to kick that problem up the chain and then those folks hire some expert that can be sued if they are wrong.
> I find that only people paid to have the responsibility and liability for the results of decisions are the ones that make them
This is it really. You can't have responsibility without control over the things you are responsible for. People both below you and above you have to accept that. And "real" responsibility comes only from bearing liability for bad outcomes. Even if formal organizational lines prescribe differently, this is where the real boundaries will lie and to the extent there is any discrepancy it will manifest as organizational dysfunction.
I think its a key thing for junior staff who want more autonomy to realize. If you really do want to influence decisions your first step on that pathway should be to pay it forward on commitment and responsibility front. If you don't want to take responsibility its fine, but realize it puts a fundamental limit on your autonomy.
Sometimes it is best to let your employer shoot themselves in the foot. It is often less stressful than arguing with them. I've certainly heard "I don't pay you to think" and "we'll do it my way because I say so" more than a few times. By the time I reached 25 or so, I just decided to roll with it because I was there to get paid and not to win any battles.
Woah, you have?? Odd -- software engineers, anyway, are literally paid to think.
I've never heard anything remotely like that, but if I did, I'm sure I'd start looking for a new place to work. That would be a clear sign that I'm not a good fit in that company.
Disagreeing is not arguing. You don’t have to fight decisions. You can politely point that you have reservations or questions about things without being confrontational.
I was in a position in my last role of being the voice of reason after my boss who was performing that role left.
The problem is some leadership truly wants to touch the hot stove, and eventually if you keep saying "don't touch the hot stove".. you're the "doesn't let me touch the stove guy".
So sometimes you have to let people touch the hot stove.. as a treat.
> letting other people shoot themselves in the foot
Failure is a great tool for learning. How bad will these foot injuries be, given that we'll probably only have two chances to _really_ learn something?
Perhaps I'm at the heady age where I'm cynical enough to know there are people who will keep shooting long after their feet are but bloody stumps, and too immature to do anything about it all the same.
Terrible way of thinking. Just saying yes is a sign that you’re not mature enough to communicate your disagreement tactfully and clearly.
Also, besides being the one to suffer the implementation of a terrible decision, you will most certainly be blamed for when things eventually blow up farther down the line.
> I don’t think you understand how terrible some managers can be
Meh, personal attack and you know nothing about me.
And the situation where you have to put up with a totalitarian boss because there are no other jobs in your area is so incredibly specific to whatever location you had in mind as an example—you still shouldn’t give it out as general career advice. Saying yes to everything is objectively terrible advice if you want to start a company or work in one where you make great, innovative, and highly valuable products, because that kind of output requires _thinking_ and disagreement occurs when free thought is allowed.
That sucks. You’re the one maintaining the code base so you’ll be the one who suffer when something like that explodes. Do you think boss will take responsibility for making bad architecture decisions?
My approach is to explain first, and do it my way anyway in case of hard disagreement. If boss disagrees with that what’s he gonna do? Do the job himself? Maybe he’s the boss but I’m in charge of the code base and architecture.
Yeah .. sadly that is true in majority of workplaces.
The right boss will keep their ego in check and ask: “what do you think? Do have any reservations?” It is also desirable to argue about something: back and forth “but what about this”.
But you will need to find boss and place like that. Not very common
Exactly. It's your companies money at stake and by keeping the boss happy I get to take a part of that money home with me. It is a financial transaction in the end.
Plus I get to see the downsides of another crappy approach and in the end I learn even more than doing things tHe RiGhT wAy.
That is the best we, that are not decisive, can do. You present different options, show pros and cons but someone above you want to do it his way? No problem, just give me this on a paper and take responsibility for the decision, boss.
Terrible article. Unfortunately, publishing in such a popular magazine normalizes the behaviour and makes people think this is how you have to behave in the business world. You have to treat all people with the same dignity. If you are having to treat powerful people differently, you need to look hard at the place you are in and the kind of class divide it promotes. It's fucking 2022. You want to disagree with someone, just disagree. It's a professional space and it's all adults in the room. If someone needs psychological safety before they are disagreed to, I say they need psychological help.
I’m glad you only participate in companies and situations that appear to have evolved beyond egos and politics, but the reality is that most places still have these things and many people need the tools to navigate around them.
I found the article very helpful for communicating both up and down the power spectrum.
I had a direct report that desperately wanted to use Tailwind even though we already had a library of styled components already built without it. It took everything I had to keep the conversation positive while still disagreeing with him. Developers, in particular, can be divas and these tools are just as necessary in managing up as well as down.
The year is only an argument on 90s daytime talk shows.
> If someone needs psychological safety before they are disagreed to, I say they need psychological help.
What if somebody needs safety safety, because the person they're disagreeing with is more powerful than they are? Any "psychological" safety you're seeing here is people trying to muster up enough bravery to take a real risk for the possibly dubious reward of being right.
I'm not even making any moral judgements here. There are plenty of contexts where if you're going to act out on your disagreements with me, I'd prefer to find somebody either more tactical or more pliable to take your place.
> If you are having to treat powerful people differently, you need to look hard at the place you are in and the kind of class divide it promotes. It's fucking 2022.
> The year is only an argument on 90s daytime talk shows.
I'm not sure why you think it's an argument. When someone makes a statement, it's not automatically an argument.
In this case, that statement is a call to action. Take note that decades have passed and the culture has changed, which was articulated in the previous sentence.
In theory I agree with you. Unfortunately this is a very, um, privileged way of viewing this aspect of the world. A lifetime of selection bias clouds, wherefrom this strategy works for you, but would not if tried by an other.
How do you know it’s not the opposite? That a lifetime of telling yourself it would be rejected ensures you never take risky chances that can drive success?
Your assumption presumes just as much with similar effects.
I have seen many cases in my career where people with less power in an engagement thoughtfully but thoroughly disagree and end up getting relocated off their team, demoted, or in effect nullified from having any further input. I’ve seen this enough to have noticed that it’s often women who seem to be put in this position.
I’ve never had the issues, as the prototypical HN poster demographic, and agree that the GP (?) post works for me, but fundamentally understand it’s also a strategy that can disproportionately lead to seriously bad outcomes for people in particular demographics.
Adults are mostly small children in larger bodies. Adults will sulk, throw tantrums, be petty, feel slighted, want to always be right, want to dominate etc.
It is adults that kill, rape, maim, hurt kids, start wars, torture etc.
I read the opposite from this article. Instead of being put off by a set of principles that should "only" be necessary when talking to a superior, I read it as a list of helpful principles that can be applied when disagreeing with anyone.
Like you, I agree that no special treatment should be given to people in a position of power. However, I see many of these things as sets of tools I can use to be more persuasive and likely to be heard by anyone I'm trying to discuss a difficult topic with.
> If someone needs psychological safety before they are disagreed to, I say they need psychological help.
I think the point where this was mentioned feels like the author was looking for an excuse to use the current buzzwords. And I don't think it really fits.
It's a feature of the environment whether and to what degree "permission to speak freely" is a thing or not. Nothing to do with psychological safety at all.
(Not that psychological safety is a good concept; the discussion I see is all about perception of being safe to disagree, which is very much putting the cart before the horse of whether or not there are actual repercussions for disagreeing.)
One can be right, but communicate it badly, leading to your case being rejected simply because you failed to present it correctly.
In all organisations there is politics (literally the combination of people) and those people matter. One can disagree while maintaining respect.
For example I once lobbied a supplier on behalf of a group of customers. The supplier agreed to our terms, but then presented _what we asked for_ in such an appaling disrespectful way that the group almost rejected it. It took a lot of work for me to convince them to look past the presentation to the actual content.
Personally I've had subordinates suggest things in useful, and less useful ways. I've had new hires come in, be with us a short time, and then proclaim (to anyone who will listen) that we're morons for not doing x or using y etc.
I've had others come and have a private conversation and ask about the reasons for not doing x, ot using y. Suggesting perhaps that it would be a step forward if we did etc.
New people bring value into our company. But sometimes they don't always yet have the full picture. We encourage feedback, but feedback presented in a respectful and constructive voice leads to more consideration than the opposite, regardless of the merits of the feedback.
Yes, all people deserve respect and dignity. And certainly it's on bosses to set a model for that (and I agree, not all do) - but it's certainly valuable for juniors to understand that commincating well "upstream" is key to getting change done.
And yes, there are places which will penalise you for feedback, no matter how well communicated. And that sucks. Such is life.
I haven't bothered to read the article, the comme ts tend to be more informative...
However, reality teaches us that there is no one size fits all solution for dealing with people regardless of the lower structure.
In a professional setting the key is to remain, well, professional. Even in that vein though you have to know the person and how you're perceived before taking on aome subjects. I've had some senior leadership where a suggestion from me was all it took to change course. I've had others that refused to accept 6 degrees for proof unless it was vetted through the right mgt chain. By that time all credit can be properly dispersed.
A lot of disagreements are arbitrary, emotional, lacking context, moreover, in any organization of human beings, public disagreements can amount to populism, narratives which doesn't help team cohesion. Depending on the issue of course.
To the extent that people are there to do their jobs and manage others, there's legitimacy in that authority, which comes with generally a wider and at least different purview.
Being a good player means respecting that reality.
The advice in the article is decent in helping people untie a bit of common issues from gripes, lack of perspective etc. and I would add strongly that one should probably take the disagreement in 'private' and not make it a public ordeal.
Most managers, when approached reasonably, will be good with at least the point of contention, if not resolving to the best outcome.
I wish everyone had the opportunity to manage others, and do so at least 2 layers up - it's an alternative universe up there and it's really, really hard. I think 'Director' is probably the hardest job in the company in many ways.
The calculus for most things is just different. Optimization in every corner is usually not the objective, and strategic issues start to enter in the decision making in a material way.
With that experience, people would be able to put things in context a lot better, which is a big challenge actually for front line people who often over or under appreciate the magnitude of the issue they're dealing with.
Then, approaching the 'disagreement' comes from a different perspective.
For most of my career, I would have said I wouldn't want to have my manager's job, it's just way too much fuss. Not only that, my experience in management has fundamentally changed how I hire people - 'getting along' in grey situations, where nobody is ever really going to always get their way, people are smart and passionate etc. is hard (for most) and a valuable skill. And personalities are different as well, some people are 'disagreeable' but that doesn't even mean they are 'disagreeing' with you even when it seems like they are! Figuring out how to do it while getting along is 1/2 the job.
The first mistake the article made was conceptualizing the org chart as a power ladder. Your boss isn't more "powerful" than you, in a lot of cases he isn't and relies on you and sometimes he/she is more powerful than you. It doesn't matter.
Don't waste his/her time. If you can do this, you've already cut out pretty much every unnecessary fumble.
White Males still enjoy the greatest degree of speaking without fear of retribution, reprisal, or even a contrary response. Some behavior isn’t tolerated like it used to be. Let’s not mischaracterize that as not being able to speak freely.
Uh, what? White males have been speaking freely (and continue to do so) for as long as the concept of racial hierarchy has existed.
The American tech industry is run by (straight) white men, we're doing most of the speaking, highly disproportionate to our representation globally (where the impact of our decision are felt).
There is a cancel culture that has created a chilling effect on the speech of white men, and denying it is gaslighting. White men now have to think more than twice about explaining their extremely interesting opinions about race or about women's appearances/intelligence, especially at work. It's been a slippery slope ever since somebody decided that white people couldn't shout the "N-word," even if they were singing a song or quoting a black person.
I obviously think it's a good thing (but only to the above extent.) But it is bad to tell people that they're crazy, because it makes them upset when they know they're not.
White men are now having to do what every other ethnic/gender group has had to do for hundreds of years; that's not cancel culture, that's growing equity. Thinking before you speak is a great idea, and a lot more people should do it.
And when it comes to technical conversations (the topic of this post), literally none of this is true at all. White men are absolutely and completely free to say literally any work-related thing they want, there is no chilling effect present there.
Usually talking anything disagreeable will get you anywhere from passed over for promotion, shitcanned, fired for any imaginary reason of applicable. It affects women more than men, and interacts with racism too as judgements are harsher, so the threshold of what is "unacceptable" is tighter.
I would have benefitted greatly from taking the author's principles to heart when my career began 30+ years ago. I tend to be destructively critical. It has not served me well.
The article makes a couple excellent points: 1) assure the listener that you both seek the same goal, 2) provide a solution, not just more problems.
Negativity alone is poison. If you don't have better ideas to replace the ones you shoot down, say nothing. Nobody likes troublemakers.
It also took me much too long to realize that most people enjoy debate far less than I do, especially those who need to act ASAP, like bosses.
It's not that people don't enjoy debate, it's that it's never just debate that's happening. Usually it's about attention-seeking, ego-feeding, controlling interactions, pleasure from ranting, and so on.
It's similar to people who claim that they "tell it like it is". We understand what it means in practice and what sort of personality type to expect.
You can disagree without being a troublemaker. Managers disagree amongst themselves all the time. Sometimes you have to disagree. Disagreeing doesn’t mean actively fighting things.
I once spent six months disagreeing with my own customer about the validity of a planning and the ability of our suppliers to hit the deadlines they were announcing. People were very happy I had insisted on contingency plans when it became obvious the project was indeed going to be late.
These articles make it sound like people waste many hours creating cases for disagreeing with someone with more role power than you.
It's really not that difficult to show the right amount of candor while being objective about the disagreement.
This doesn't have to be a game of chess where you overanalyze your every move. People will respect the fact you said something that might be the elephant in the room anyway.
The challenge is that these articles assume that you're working with vindictive egotists, and there's plenty of those in corporate America.
It's not that difficult if you've already developed the right instincts for how to do it. But many people haven't! They're immigrants who aren't quite familiar with American business norms, or they're neurodivergent and need guidelines for how to calibrate their candor, or maybe they just grew up in a strict household where their dad taught them to always defer to authority. If I'd read something like this it might have helped me skip a few unfortunate learning incidents early in my career.
Even worse, it normalizes being a vindictive egotist. People need to be grown up about feedback especially if they're in powerful positions. Not ok to be offended.
I'm pretty sure the target audience is people in toxic organizations and situations. Otherwise you wouldn't need advice and don't need to read something like this. I didn't need advice like this then suddenly after some turnover found my self in a situation where I was dealing with people that created this situation
Hofstede’s Power distance Index is different across cultures.
In North America it is generally quite low, and most managers become acutely sensitive to manipulative/sycophantic antics unless completely blinded by narcissism.
It also ties into management styles, and how staff treat each other. Generally, if people are jerks it is a defensive mechanism masking an insecurity about their role at a firm. Personally, I preferred the competent and bluntly honest over someone acting agreeable.. telling people what they think they need to hear.
My advice, Manage or be Managed by amateurs. Eventually someone needs to take fiscal responsibility, and bring down the hammer on liabilities.
This is why most CEOs I knew became rather prickly personalities after a few years if they liaised in managerial roles.
The book Crucial Conversations is quite good and deals with this. The author says to avoid the "Fool's Choice", which is "I can be honest or maintain a good relationship, but not both". The author's own one-sentence summary is "be 100% honest, and 100% respectful". Stated like that, I realized I could be honest in a smart way and not damage my relationships. Of course, sometimes we still end up not getting our way. I recommend this book.
I've also realized I should avoid any extraordinary efforts to "cover my ass" against abusive leaders. If they're going to be abusive, I don't need an ironclad defense to rub their noses in, I just need to get out. And I need not feel ashamed of not having that ironclad defense nor of reacting poorly to their aggression; like anyone abused by those in a position of power, I'm not at fault and need not be ashamed. Decent people will accept "we talked about this last month and you said..." just as well as they'll accept a written paper trail. This isn't to say never document things, but don't do it as a crutch for bad leaders; don't obsess about it, you shouldn't have to use it as a coping mechanism.
If you’re in a position of authority, and someone starts this level of obsequious bullshit, please put them at ease as soon as possible, then fix your culture. No-one should have to burn so much excess energy just to pipe up.
I always liked the meeting style where folks voice their opinions in ascending order of seniority. Someone told me this comes from Japan. I can’t confirm the origin but it’s certainly a neat way of defusing automatic deference to a senior voice.
There should be advice for the more powerful person. Maybe they don't think they need advice? After all - they made it. They are the smarter one right! But that is incorrect - their ego is probably costing them.
By default, they should make it super easy for anyone to disagree. Beyond that they should make it so there are very few instances where there needs to be a discussion like that. Because they have properly delegated authority and trust to teams to get stuff done.
When the powerful person things the team has done it wrong, ideally, they should pop in and say, "let me understand what you are doing and why". In other words: the powerful person should adopt the role of the humble person, following the advice of that article.
In this way you won't kill good ideas, you won't kill important whistle blows (of the "this would lead to a fuckup" type, as well as the "this is illegal" type), and frustrated good people won't silent quit or loud quit.
I care about technical issues. Too much probably. I tend to be _that guy_.
So my emotional investment comes out in my tone.
My team lead then gets invested himself. At that point, the technical issue is just a firm, what's happening really is an emotional battle to dominate the frame. It's a zero-sum game.
What I do now: make the pitch of my voice go down at the end of sentences, not up. This makes me sound detached; bored, even.
Not only does this take away the emotional element, I find that the team lead mirrors me. His tone starts dropping, too.
At that point we aren't butting heads; we're side by side, looking at the issue.
I wonder how much of our interpersonal conflict has been me speaking in a high emotional key and dragging the discourse to a heightened emotional state.
if you’re open to it ;) imo we do a terrible job of training managers to be leaders instead of “bosses”. we have an absurd view of leadership equating to a person’s value being higher.
it’s not. when you work in management you have a role to perform, but if you have a culture that has to work to assuage you in order to disagree with you then you should probably find a different job.
You should probably read the rest of that paragraph. It specifically starts off with "this may seem overly deferential," and then goes into explaining it in more detail about what exactly they meant.
The way I read it, it's not about asking permission, per se, it's about setting expectations. "Head's up, I'm about to disagree with you." Also by giving them this ability to "opt in" to the disagreement, you're creating a relationship based on trust. In other words, they're hearing you respectfully express your thoughts and feelings, and that makes them _more_ likely to listen to you in the future, versus just barging in with your thoughts unannounced. (Contrariwise, if they say "no" too many times, then they don't trust you or your opinions -- and that's information for you to do what you wish!)
And sometimes? Your boss doesn't want you to disagree, they just want you to execute, saving both of you the time and energy of arguing.
You may still disagree, and you may not like their decision to just execute, but at the end of the day, they're the boss and you aren't. You're free to get another job!
As a leader in my company, I welcome disagreement early on. But at some point, we have to execute and we can't get stuck in a stalemate because I want A and you want B. Someone has to make a decision, and as the superior, that responsibility lies with me (or in some contexts, it lies with my superior, even if I disagree!).
(P.S. You are allowed to disagree with your parents, too!)
You're as free to get another job as your wallet and opportunity allows you. Usually that is not worth a lot.
It also depends on what you're disagreeing about and whether your manager has enough of a pull to get it changed.
Usually rank and file employees are barred from expressing opinions about strategy at all. Permission or not, you will get ignored.
The best you may get is more work as an experiment, with little reward and low chances of success.
I accidentally stumbled on the permission to disagree when arguing with my partner. We both do it now. Sometimes people aren't in the mood to argue/debate. When you ask permission, if they say yes, they usually keep their emotions in check. If they say no, you save the battle for another day.
This sentiment is one I understand, and I'm not fond of deference to power either. That section of the article though, illustrates an example which I would say is useful when challenging any idea, not just one from a person with more "power". It's a small signal that you're going to challenge the ideas, and it gives the other party room to prepare. A social protocol if you will.
There are quite a few good ideas in tfa. The power deference is frustrating, but it's also a reality with groups of humans. In the end, you can build up your own forms of informal power and social capital if you deal with this kind of situation pragmatically. As a result you can become someone people will trust to discuss ideas effectively.
I once worked somewhere that the boss strongly encouraged feedback and ideas from his team members (me), and whenever I actually put forward an idea he didn't do it and found a way to explain that it didn't make sense.
Of course I gave up contributing ideas very quickly.
If some is arguing, and they are more powerful, they can "work through" argumentation faster than you. Therefore someone who is more powerful than you can argue faster and more effectively.
If you wish to disagree you must be both demonstrably correct and able to provide the work.
"Here's one I prepared earlier" is most effective as long as the preparation is demonstrably correct.
Take your time, make sure you know how to argue all aspects clearly and fully, and be patient. The powerful, such as they are, tend to be impatient.
The wise let others work, both separately and together, and build on all available agreement.
This is absolutely not the definition of power. Perhaps it should be, but in the real world there is only a tenuous correlation between competence and power.
When a person has attained power, they are often less compelled to provide sound argumentation for a perspective or solution. This can be expedient, assuming competence, but it can also lead to anything from wasted resources to the downfall of empires.
Rather than placing the onus on those with less power, I'd say those with more power should remain humble and open to new perspectives, and impatience should be taken as a signal to guide those with less power, experience, and/or skill.
This is a good way of summing up the effect. Although power also has the ability to screw up quickly unchecked, because they can bulldoze badly thought through ideas into action.
I have zero interest in getting on my boss' bad side. I will definitely express my opinion and that is enough for me. If the higher up still pushes for doing things his way, so be it. I did my part.
> Maybe it's just poorly worded, but this seems too subordinate and gives off a parent-child power dynamic.
When you are subordinate to the other party in the conversation and they view the situation through parent-child power dynamic applies, which is common in many business environments, this is good advice.
An old manager gave me something I almost consider a superpower - a simple technique that works for this very well.
Ask questions.
That's it. Turns out, either you're wrong, and the answers to the questions will make you ralise this, or they're wrong, and them answering the questions will guide them to the mistake.
Telling someone, even respectfully, that they're wrong can kick off defense mechanisms, no matter how experienced they are.
I don't agree, unless you're asking questions sarcastically or questions with obvious answers; if you're asking questions as a genuine means to try and understand what they are talking about, making no assumptions that they are wrong, only a moron would get annoyed at having to explain their thinking. A moron, or someone who knows they are wrong.
This. Asking genuine questions is the key - as is starting from the assumption that, hey, I might be completely wrong here - I want to understand this.
Just be honest and straightforward with whatever needs to be said, without being an ass.
If that gets you in trouble and you have to leave the place, rest assured that you'll find a place where your traits are appreciated and your work life will be 1,000 times better.
There's no definition of this, this is more of that don't be a dick stuff. What constitutes being a dick or an ass hinges on culture. If you're the new guy and everybody else is experienced and has worked with each other for a while, being an ass might mean opening your mouth at all. Whether you're right or not.
> rest assured that you'll find a place where your traits are appreciated
A lot of people don't appreciate the trait of pride in lacking social skills and tact or lack of awareness of one's surroundings or not understanding power structures. They'd have to worry about you saying something dumb to a client (even if you were right.)
>pride in lacking social skills and tact or lack of awareness of one's surroundings or not understanding power structures
LOL, projecting too much I guess? I never implied any of that.
>What constitutes being a dick or an ass hinges on culture.
Nah. Or are you talking about circumstances like "I didn't knew that a handshake was offensive in this remote village"? Those things are extremely rare in business contexts, and even when they happen both parties usually laugh it off, as they both understand that the intent was not to offend.
"Don't be a dick" is hard to describe, as you cannot put a 500-page book with all the specific situations written literally, which is the kind of thing that will please people like you. But, at the same time, every single person that's at least 12 years old have a sense of "this is right" vs. "this is not right". Don't lie, don't steal, there's a place for everything, if something ain't yours don't touch, I don't know, that sort of thing.
If you don't get those things, or pretend not to get them because of some weird and extremely particular circumstances that you have to make up to justify it, well ... let's not work together then :).
They raised valid points, I don't understand all the sudden snide remarks.
Some companies are more tolerant of input and advice, others unfortunately are less so. It is not uncommon to find a workplace where the boss will tag you as a 'dick' if you 'argue too much', and blackball you, even if you asserted it politely and reasonably.
This website views professional relationships with a privileged lens because most people here can switch jobs easily, negotiate job conditions more freely, have more in the bank when looking for another position.
For most people there is no such rest assured and it's important to remember that.
Having to leave due to disagreeing affects you even if you eventually land somewhere else better. It absolutely alters the way you view that space between you and those with more influence than you, and you will likely do a bunch of added work trying to build yourself back up. Even if your confidence isn't shattered, you'll probably wind up doing a bunch of things mentioned in the article anyways, negating the advice of "just be honest".
Unless of course you're stubborn, that does have its benefits sometimes!
Also a lot of comments are coming at this from a boss -> employee role, but it also applies from a lesser known person on social media -> more influential person on social media too. Being honest and straightforward does not work there most of the time and leads to a lot of misunderstanding!
I disagree with the premise of someone being more powerful. What does power mean? You serve a role in an organization and have expertise. It’s your duty to provide that expertise to the firm and/or its clients, no matter their level. That’s what they PAY you for. Sure, you can be overruled by those above you that have different responsibilities or motivations, but you still have to provide your expertise for the position you’re in.
Very often the person "more powerful than you" in question is a closeted, or unknowing, sociopath, or psychopath (I am using the terms by definition, no judgement) and your opinion still might be interpreted as an attack, regardless of reasoning. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/the-science-behind-why-so-ma...
It is very difficult to work with such people. So, be extra careful when challenging anything that is on the agenda of a sociopath boss. You've been warned.
Take your boss’s desk on the first day and use your protein powder to knock his family photos on the ground. Tear off your sleeves during your lunch hour and constantly mutter “what the fuck is this” as you’re looking through everyone’s PRs.
Staying calm and speaking slowly while arguing is the key for me.
But there's one space where no trained skill seems to work: politics.
I just avoid at all costs discussing politics with friends and family, because it simple leads to nowhere. Older people usually likes to stay in a position of power in those dicussions like "they know much more than us", so in the end I just stay quiet and "agree" because in the current state of things, people feel so much harmed by words that its better this way.
While I've used that conflict avoidance approach there are two sides of the issue you reference. On one side you have the people with the least experience and shortest perspective convinced that they know best while on the other hand are the people with the longest experience but most set in their ways are also convinced they're right.
In my experience both tend to be wrong more often than not. Neither wants to listen to the other for the reasons above and then fail to benefit from the others experience.
I find it extremely necessary to disuss stuff. Both, in my family and with coworkers. That's where I feel it is needed most. To get along even in case of disagreement is like the most important thing to me, and feels like a duty. Basically, keeping people talking to each other is what prevents wars, right? Left, Right, Middle? Conservative? Democrat? Anti-Capitalism? Pro-Free-Markets? I really stopped caring. I am only kinda concerned about people that are unable to disagree.
I really enjoy talking about politics. I noticed, that I often can find common ground with almost everybody. I got used to be forced to search for common ground to have any conversation at all. This is because I disagree with most people I talk to on even the most basic stuff. It started when I was about age 17 or so. Mainly because I started reading stuff and thinking about it myself. Prior to this I had no opinion at all.
Also having changed my own opinion on major things helps me a lot. I haven't changed my principles by the way. I just noticed I was wrong about some "hot topics". So that actually helped me a lot to understand I might be wrong, and I think people feel this when I talk. I still have strong opinions. I simply understand I might be wrong and express this. And always try to understand better. Basicall, I feel like I know nothing, but then I notice I often understand more than a lot of people. Which I think is something quite easy to achieve by simply don't caring much about who is right or wrong and talking to everybody. Just assuming all people involved in conflicts are human and trying to understand even 'the bad actors' whoever I believe them to be.
Another funny thing is I often get along better with people from the opposite political spectrum. Because then it's clear we deeply disagree. So there is no point in trying to convincing each other. This makes talking about hot stuff a lot easier. People from the same political spectrum often care to much about small differences to have a meaningfull discussion.
Also through talking to family and friends I notice how much in general personality is mixed with political opinion. I think I can draw the lines because I see the paths they take in their live and the mistakes they repeat over and over again over time periods of many years. I don't think this is obvious enough to see with strangers. At least I wouldn't have without the close relationship. That also makes me humble. Sometimes I notice how my political opinions reflect my own personality, but I think this is hard to do on my own. That's another reason to talk to family and friends about politics.
I feel if one manages to destroy relations then one is doing something wrong. On the other hand, I also noticed some people are kinda sensitive and take things personally. Especially, when talking about some hot topics like ongoing hot or cold wars or alledged or real occupations. So I try to be carefull. Mainly by immediately feeling for boundaries. How far can I go? I mean it is quite easy to say "Ok, maybe I don't know/understad enough. What do you say to this?" Mostly, I am genuinly curious. Sometimes I just feel the duty to offer an honest conversation.
I like your point of view and I'm sure we would be friends in RL because I'm usually around of people with strong opinions (even if I don't agree or even like it). I like to understand the thinking process of people around me - family and friends. The thing is I just don't have the energy to engage in disagreements for too long and I tend to avoid conflicts in general (maybe my personality is the biggest problem here?). I always feel that my energy was totally drained after super engaged discussions.
Well, it may be possible for you to simply not talk about politics, but for folks who have their rights stripped away, their water made undrinkable, their loved ones ripped from them or shunned for simply existing, should they also not talk about that with others?
I doubt most folks who talk about politics really "want" to, as much as they feel a responsibility or need to do so out of compassion or even desperation. Nearly everyone would prefer if we all could just get along, but we don't get along, and pretending we do seems like a great way to just allow the majority to steamroll the minority.
Well, then that's a totally different aspect of it. You're speaking about politics as a weapon or a way of surviving under extremely difficult circumstances, which neither of us here, reading and posting on HN, are suffering. What I'm talking about is politics as a smalltalk subject, in a family/friendly environment.
I think you're talking about "discussing politics to shoot the shit" but I think it's really important you realize that you and I do that because we're lucky, and "eschewing discussion of political topics" is only something you get the privilege to do when you're not getting targeted.
The actually-oppressed stay in hiding. Whether they're gay in 1945 or Russian dissidents today, or political dissidents in today's western overculture, "eschewing discussion of political topics" is a mandatory survival strategy. I can relate because I am in this position - having to pretend I'm something I'm not on a daily basis in almost all contexts.
Someone who feels they can afford to speak politically on things others won't like must be in a pretty powerful position.
What do you think that person looks like to someone who knows they have to keep their mouth shut to not have their life ruined?
Having the right to even talk about your issues is an important and oft-overlooked privilege.
Then is it really a "totally different aspect"? You can't know the motivations behind why politics comes up in a conversation, and it's perfectly reasonable for someone who isn't the target of oppression to feel empathy for and advocate on behalf of the oppressed.
Again, I'm speaking about people (family/friends) that I know their background and I know that it is a huge waste of time trying to argue against their biased POV of "good old days of dictatorship". I'm talking about people that don't care about the oppressed.
It’s not worth trying to convince such people, the chance of success is very low and such discussions tend to get very uncomfortable very fast. Once you’ve established that someone supports authoritarian dictatorship, your engagement should be restricted to telling them such views are unacceptable in the space (if applicable) or correcting errors of fact for any onlookers.
But if you don’t already know the person’s views, it seems unwise to assume that “old person = supports the old regime,” since this will result in you missing opportunities to connect with potential allies.
> Once you’ve established that someone supports authoritarian dictatorship, your engagement should be restricted to telling them such views are unacceptable in the space (if applicable) or correcting errors of fact for any onlookers.
Even as they metaphorically step on the throats of the people you care about?
Everything here seems pretty fine (if basic), So often I see engineers screw this up, usually by forgetting a few things:
* They only have some of the information, and don’t account for that fact.
* Their goals aren’t the same as a leader’s goals.
* The leader has ownership of the larger outcome, and may want to make tradeoffs that are suboptimal for an individual person or team, but may ultimately be good for the overall outcome.
* Being technically correct isn’t a “trump” card, it doesn’t mean everything.
If I were a better writer I’d explain this better, but often you can tell who is used to thinking at a high level and who is used to hammering out details, based on these kind of conversations. Either you recognize your visibility and responsibility or you don’t.
I always look at it as if it is my job to disagree and let anyone know about it who needs to know. In a polite and diplomaitic way, the same as any other conversation.
Not voicing one's thoughts can have a dire effect on a business, a division, a group, and/or an individual.
We are all there to voice our disagreements, it's why we are hired in the first place.
I have never had a boss who didn't want my disagreement, my questions, my thoughts. Not once. I've had a lot of jobs. I guess it isn't impossible to have a boss like that, but I think it would be fairly rare. If it did happen to me, I'd figure it out, and then start applying for new jobs, if it was reasonable and possible. If not, then I'd just STFU and keep my head down.
But, I guess this article is for people who don't feel comfortable with being assertive, but then, to me, that means someone is not assertive in everything, including asking for a raise. In this case, you should honestly go to a therapist who specializes in assertiveness training. Truly. It would be a fantastic investment.
Both men and women should be assertive. Both men and women have problems with assertiveness. And I don't mean to sound sexist, but especially women have problems with this. I personally think that is maybe 60% why women get paid less than men, because men are on a whole more aggressive. Not all, but statistically. I don't have published statistics on this, but I do have a ton of anecdotal stories that indicate at least to me that's the case. I've known extremely assertive women and they make as much money and more than men, and I've known women who are not assertive and miss out on raises. Again, it is the same with men, but I think it's more with women that are like this, for a lot of reasons.
One anecdotal story - I was hired the exact same day as a woman who was better than me at the job, I knew this factually from day 1. No doubt. The hiring guy, the owner, said that after 30 days, he would re-evaluate and if he like our performance, would increase salary. On day 30, I was in front of his desk, and he doubled my pay rate. From $60 to $120 per hour. Not bad. 6 months later, this same woman comes up to me and says, "Did you get a raise? How much?" So I said yes, I asked 30 days after he said to ask, didn't you???" She said no. So that means I was paid 100% more than a woman that was way more qualified than I.
To me, that is her fault that she didn't get paid as much as me, a less qualified man. It would be another man's fault, too, if he didn't ask for the raise. She's a fucking grown-ass woman, am I supposed to do everything for her, double-check all her work and her everything? Is the boss? And, I'm sure as there are stars in the sky, if I did, she or some other woman would come at me with the whole "patronizing" and "mansplaining" stuff if I asked stuff like that..."Oh, you don't think women can do what men do? SEXISM." I KNOW there are some other women who would be there on day 30. But I think most women, and a lot, lot, lot of men just to be rewarded for their work without asking, that the bosses should just pay them more and see their contributions. This is what a child does, they expect mommy and daddy to give them things without asking.
I think that "equal pay for equal work" is not entirely accurate. Sure, some is, maybe 5-10%. But I think the real saying should be "equal pay for equal assertiveness and aggressiveness." It is a fact everywhere I've been - Assertive people make more money. "Equal pay for equal work" is so passive and dependent, like an infant. Man up. Woman up. Open your mouth.
I hope no one sees this as "mansplaining" or "sexist". I WANT women, and men, to get paid their full value by being politely and diplomatically assertive in all areas of life, not just work or income.
I'm writing all of this, because maybe you all (women and men) are much younger than I am and you have never really thought of this in depth. Maybe you have thought about it a little but no one has ever been straight up with you.
So go to a therapist for assertiveness training, if you have problems with being assertive. It's probably the best money and time you'll ever spend.
* In a healthy team, you ideally shouldn't need special skills to disagree with someone more powerful than you.
* But it's very common for teams to have some degree of egotism and dysfunction, so these are useful skills in practice.
* But on the other hand, this article normalizes that egotism and dysfunction; it implies that the less-powerful person is responsible for working around the more-powerful person's ego, instead of the more-powerful person being responsible for keeping their ego in check.
So even though it's useful advice for the individuals reading it, it subtly erodes the culture of the industry as a whole. And I want to push back on that. If you're in a position of power, it's your responsibility to make sure that people working with you don't need special skills to disagree with you or with other people on the team!