I think it depends a lot on your approach. Raising some concerns in a one-on-one and allowing them to change course or not will go over better than just shooting their idea down in a big meeting with many people.
I've tried many times, with many different approaches and many different people over the course of a 20-year career.
The variation in outcomes was absolutely zero.
To anyone who wants to believe that bosses are fundamentally capable of tolerating independent thought among their underlings, I would recommend the book "Disciplined Minds" by Jeff Schmidt [1].
I guess theoretically I could have had a career that's gone even better than the one I have had, but I haven't had any real problems with my approach so I think I'll stick with it.
Were you trying to say "My success proves me right"?
Because the other reading is: You're not good at independent thinking, therefore you've never had those independent thoughts that made your bosses dislike you, and that explains why you had a good career. So, your success proves me right.
Now enter into some introspection. Do you dislike me, now that I've suggested this? Or do I get brownie points from you for being an independent thinker and voicing my disagreement?
Because I genuinely believe that there's a valid and interesting thought in what I just said that we can all learn from. Also: If you were my boss, I would have just killed my career prospects.
If your approach is personal insult then I can see why it isn’t that well received. To answer your question, though, I was saying I feel I have had success raising disagreements and didn’t ask for or particularly want to read something explaining to me why I should ignore over a decade of my own experience. Hey maybe I’m just really dull like you suggest.
If you really want to call in the tone police on this: My initial comment was reacting to the article saying "This doesn't match my experience" in which I've simultaneously made myself vulnerable to ad-hominem attack because it was implying that my career wasn't going so well. And your response was to step on that vulnerability and say: "Well, take it from someone whose career is going great: If you're the sort of person who has experience X, you're probably the sort of person who would make mistake Y." What do you know about whether I use one-on-ones for voicing disagreements with my bosses versus making them look bad in public?
> your response was to step on that vulnerability and say: "Well, take it from someone whose career is going great: If you're the sort of person who has experience X, you're probably the sort of person who would make mistake Y."
I didn’t say any of that and that was just one illustrative example of how your method of delivery can have a big influence on whether your suggestions are received as well intentioned or hostile. If you are this prone to seeing attempts to offend you where none are there and responding in kind then I do think we’ve found the root of your problem.
FWIW, I think resistance, as hinted at in Disciplined Minds, is a weak basis for an identity. A "truth to power" speaker is only good for certain kinds of truths and certain kinds of power. Its a role that doesn't mean much outside of that; it doesn't hold up in the long run.
I am not the OP, I am not your boss, we are not even in total disagreement, and yet your short comment already rubs me the wrong way.
Maybe your streak of bad results isn't a result of disagreement per se, but of your attitude. If you usually present your disagreement in the same way that you wrote this comment, the I-Win-You-Lose attitude is a good way to needlessly alienate other people.
Yes, bosses, in the end, don't really care. They'll "appreciate" it in their minds (in the manner of a process being completed) but then not do anything with it, because that's not their job. They exist to create confusion and order from it and anyone honest enough to be a Good boss is quickly dethroned.
I'm a "boss" of people that report to me and I oversee, and I certainly care and appreciate feedback and suggestions and criticism.
But that's where it ends. I am under no obligation to do what this subordinate wants or thinks is best. It isn't a democracy or a decision by committee when we have hierarchical structures in place. You give your best advice, suggestions, opinions and recommendations...and then it's up to the leader to make a decision; wrong or right. That's leadership.
The question is not so much whether you do as you're told by your subordinate but how you handle the "disagree-but-commit" state.
Ideally, the way it should work would be for the boss to say: "Okay, I think the right course of action is X, you think it's Y. We're in disagreement, but because I'm the boss, we'll do X. As you go about doing X, I won't intrude on your sphere of autonomy but will instead trust that you're a professional and will execute on X faithfully. If you frequently disagree with me and you're up for a promotion, I won't hold the disagreements against you. It might even work in your advantage, because we need to increase diversity of thought in management, rather than filling management roles with yes-men."
The way it usually works, in my experience, is: "I want you to do X, but you think you should be doing Y. That makes you a risk, because there's a danger you will sabotage X and execute on Y instead. I'll subject you to extra-close supervision to counteract that risk. When you're up for a promotion and you frequently disagree with me, I will fight your promotion, because if we increase your level of influence, it'll create more work for me, because I'll have to double-check your judgment and countermand your actions as a manager whereever I disagree. Having people in management who aren't yes-men just makes management more work, and we don't need that."
If your boss is of the latter kind and you disagree with them, then it's a mistake for you to ever "show your hand" to them by telling them about it. It's then better to just keep your mouth shut, and do as you're told. -- And this "shut your mouth and do as you're told" is my career advice for young people. This makes me look bad, and reflects poorly on the companies I've worked for. But that's the difference between career advice and hagiography.
I think the way the disagreements are voiced and handled by the disagreer matter a lot in which of those two responses you would receive.
Also, I think it would matter a lot on how X vs Y turned out later. I.e. the difference between always disagreeing but also always getting it wrong. Or sometimes disagreeing but then getting it right and handling being right gracefully.
In my experience "shut your mouth and do as you're told" people are appreciated, more than employees who just disagree to disagree. However, the employees who voice their opinions, are able to articulate their stance and know when it is important to budge or when not to budge are always valued higher.
There's a cool idea that's related to that which also comes up in Ray Dalio's "Principles", which is to keep a log and do some kind of bean counting on who turns out to be right vs. wrong in situations of disagreements. The idea is that people who frequently turn out to be right should be given more influence. It's also a question that has been on my mind a lot in reflecting upon my career.
My observation has been that people have a very acute awareness of who the people are who they frequently find themselves disagreeing with versus who the people are who they seldom disagree with. And they have terrible memory when it comes to remembering what those disagreements were even about, let alone who ended up being right. If you are the "wronged party" in that dynamic, then bringing up your track record of disagreeing and being right is one of the worst things you can do.
People who disagree just for the sake of disagreeing are, in my mind, a myth, especially in the workplace where the stakes are high and disagreement tends to go hand-in-hand with conflict and power struggle and is therefore uncomfortable territory. Nobody would put themselves through that discomfort for nothing.
> People who disagree just for the sake of disagreeing are, in my mind, a myth, especially in the workplace where the stakes are high and disagreement tends to go hand-in-hand with conflict and power struggle and is therefore uncomfortable territory. Nobody would put themselves through that discomfort for nothing.
Maybe so, but the persistence of this myth among people who work suggests my original point about the delivery of the message as important has some truth to it, as some people are perceived this way.
What I meant was that there's a very marked disconnect between being a boss and being an employee. Most people are often both. Yet, when one's a boss, one forgets what it's like for the employee on the other end, and vice versa.
Work by / working with people that can bridge this gap is what startup culture (in tech) used to be all about.
