6 ms·

Being thought of as a "subordinate" (I mention this, because he talks about programmers as being subordinates). Am I the only person on earth that rails agains

by wynand 17y ago

Being thought of as a "subordinate" (I mention this, because he talks about programmers as being subordinates). Am I the only person on earth that rails against this? I trade my time for money, but I am no-one's "subordinate". To me, a manager is someone who makes sure I can get my work done and checks on the overall progress. I guess I'm asking for a mighty downvoting but I really want to know if others think its okay and why its okay to be a subordinate (especially when the superordinates are so often less than impressive human beings).

derefr 17y ago
It's a concept of "entitlement in time," implicitly embedded in many cultures. You are first subordinate to your parents, then to your teachers, then to your boss; then you become one of those things and "get to" treat others as subordinates. It's very hard to get away from, even in start-ups (which you'd think would be a breeding ground for creative company organization schemes.)
- rick888 17y ago
  "It's very hard to get away from, even in start-ups (which you'd think would be a breeding ground for creative company organization schemes.)" That's because you can't get away from human nature. Most people can't lead. They need someone telling them what to do and keeping them on-track. The ones that do become managers, presidents, ceos, or run their own company.
  - abstractbill 17y ago
    Most people can't lead. They need someone telling them what to do and keeping them on-track. These are two separate skills - the ability to lead others, and the ability to work productively without being led. I'm not convinced either claim is true to be honest - it's probably more true to say that most people have never had the opportunity to even try to develop these skills.
    - rick888 17y ago
      "These are two separate skills - the ability to lead others, and the ability to work productively without being led." One skill leads to another. If you can show upper management that you have the ability to work without being led, you can eventually become a manager. "I'm not convinced either claim is true to be honest - it's probably more true to say that most people have never had the opportunity to even try to develop these skills." People that want to lead, will find a way to lead (either starting their own organization, joining an existing one, or worker their way up through management at a company). If you aren't given the opportunity, it means you aren't interested in becoming a leader (or just aren't trying). Leadership isn't just handed to you.
      - locopati 17y ago
        Which is funny - just because you can work without being led doesn't mean you can lead others. One would hope you've gained some insight into how to work without being led and can apply this to others, but that's far easier said than done.
        rick888 17y ago
        "Which is funny - just because you can work without being led doesn't mean you can lead others. One would hope you've gained some insight into how to work without being led and can apply this to others, but that's far easier said than done." How often does a business/company allow you to work without being led or managed? If that's the case, the company is very small (and you are the manager of yourself because nobody else knows what is going on). The next logical step to this is to hire more people under you. Most companies aren't going to give you a management role. You need to prove you have the skills in some way.
- whyenot 17y ago
  Dominance hierarchies are a prominent feature of many primate societies, including those of our closing living relatives, chimpanzees. Maybe the human brain is naturally, and not entirely logically biased towards these types of relationships.
filosofo 17y ago
That's funny, because "subordinate" has replaced the previous generation's "inferior" as the commonly-used term for an employee down a step in the org chart. However, to answer your question: if someone can determine whether you get to keep your job, whether you like it or not you are that person's subordinate.
- joe_the_user 17y ago
  Subordinate has been around for a while. Inferior denotes one's class in society, subordinate denotes one's position in an organization.
- Retric 17y ago
  Ok, I don't like that word, but it's hard to replace without being just as insulting. Granted I tend to use minion. As in he is he is my minion, or I will have my minions deal with that. However, IMO it's connotation does not remove the idea that they have a fair level of autonomy just that I give them direction.
- azanar 17y ago
  However, to answer your question: if someone can determine whether you get to keep your job, whether you like it or not you are that person's subordinate. It's interesting how two different perspectives on what is largely the same arrangement can yield such different answers. By organization, if someone can fire you, you are their subordinate. By productivity, the "subordinate" is not necessarily subordinate at all. The working relationship may be much more than of peers, where the pair of them manage to both get things done, and keep people informed of what is going on. It might even be that the subordinate in the traditional sense is anything but in the tangible sense. What sucks is that the traditional organizational arrangement has a very difficult time representing this. It mandates a strict hierarchical arrangement of staff, even if the staff themselves does not view themselves as hierarchical. Because, in this arrangement, one person is usually granted the ability to terminate the employment of the other, there is necessarily an adversarial component to their relationship. Even if they work as peers, one has to report to a chain-of-command about the other. For people and teams who don't need this sort of arrangement, having it imposed absolutely sucks. But, because it so entrenched in corporate tradition, it emerges anyway. I rail against it as well. There are people who don't need it, but those who don't need or want this arrangement get it anyway, regardless of the detriment it causes. I get the sense this happens simply because of the perspective that it must necessarily happen, because people have all these preconceived notions about management and subordination that they have a hard time letting go. I think we'd lose the adversarial perspective if we lost the notions, and that would be a good thing.
stonemetal 17y ago
Subordinate may be too strong a word, but for the most part it is correct. To me, a manager is someone who makes sure I can get my work done and checks on the overall progress. And what work is that? For most people their manager sets project goals and direction.
CoreDumpling 17y ago
I don't mind being a subordinate so long as I can use the "just following orders" excuse whenever something blows up in a customer's face. Part of management's responsibility, after all, is to shield us mere developers from the ugliness out there. Sadly, I've dealt with management that was more interested in protecting themselves than the people they "managed."
cookiecaper 17y ago
It's given within the context of the organization. You are your boss's subordinate at the workplace. That's just a description of what you are there, there's nothing offensive about it. You're not subordinate to anyone regarding your life as a whole. If you're not a fan of your boss, you can quit and then he won't have authority over you anymore.
d3vvnull 17y ago
In the company I work for they use "direct report" to identify someone who reports directly to a manager or supervisor. But like it or not, "subordinate" is not so much a slam as it is a way to describe one's position in a hierarchical command structure.

by wynand 17y ago

derefr 17y ago

It's a concept of "entitlement in time," implicitly embedded in many cultures. You are first subordinate to your parents, then to your teachers, then to your boss; then you become one of those things and "get to" treat others as subordinates. It's very hard to get away from, even in start-ups (which you'd think would be a breeding ground for creative company organization schemes.)

rick888 17y ago
"It's very hard to get away from, even in start-ups (which you'd think would be a breeding ground for creative company organization schemes.)" That's because you can't get away from human nature. Most people can't lead. They need someone telling them what to do and keeping them on-track. The ones that do become managers, presidents, ceos, or run their own company.
- abstractbill 17y ago
  Most people can't lead. They need someone telling them what to do and keeping them on-track. These are two separate skills - the ability to lead others, and the ability to work productively without being led. I'm not convinced either claim is true to be honest - it's probably more true to say that most people have never had the opportunity to even try to develop these skills.
  - rick888 17y ago
    "These are two separate skills - the ability to lead others, and the ability to work productively without being led." One skill leads to another. If you can show upper management that you have the ability to work without being led, you can eventually become a manager. "I'm not convinced either claim is true to be honest - it's probably more true to say that most people have never had the opportunity to even try to develop these skills." People that want to lead, will find a way to lead (either starting their own organization, joining an existing one, or worker their way up through management at a company). If you aren't given the opportunity, it means you aren't interested in becoming a leader (or just aren't trying). Leadership isn't just handed to you.
    - locopati 17y ago
      Which is funny - just because you can work without being led doesn't mean you can lead others. One would hope you've gained some insight into how to work without being led and can apply this to others, but that's far easier said than done.
      - rick888 17y ago
        "Which is funny - just because you can work without being led doesn't mean you can lead others. One would hope you've gained some insight into how to work without being led and can apply this to others, but that's far easier said than done." How often does a business/company allow you to work without being led or managed? If that's the case, the company is very small (and you are the manager of yourself because nobody else knows what is going on). The next logical step to this is to hire more people under you. Most companies aren't going to give you a management role. You need to prove you have the skills in some way.
whyenot 17y ago
Dominance hierarchies are a prominent feature of many primate societies, including those of our closing living relatives, chimpanzees. Maybe the human brain is naturally, and not entirely logically biased towards these types of relationships.

filosofo 17y ago

That's funny, because "subordinate" has replaced the previous generation's "inferior" as the commonly-used term for an employee down a step in the org chart. However, to answer your question: if someone can determine whether you get to keep your job, whether you like it or not you are that person's subordinate.

joe_the_user 17y ago
Subordinate has been around for a while. Inferior denotes one's class in society, subordinate denotes one's position in an organization.
Retric 17y ago
Ok, I don't like that word, but it's hard to replace without being just as insulting. Granted I tend to use minion. As in he is he is my minion, or I will have my minions deal with that. However, IMO it's connotation does not remove the idea that they have a fair level of autonomy just that I give them direction.
azanar 17y ago
However, to answer your question: if someone can determine whether you get to keep your job, whether you like it or not you are that person's subordinate. It's interesting how two different perspectives on what is largely the same arrangement can yield such different answers. By organization, if someone can fire you, you are their subordinate. By productivity, the "subordinate" is not necessarily subordinate at all. The working relationship may be much more than of peers, where the pair of them manage to both get things done, and keep people informed of what is going on. It might even be that the subordinate in the traditional sense is anything but in the tangible sense. What sucks is that the traditional organizational arrangement has a very difficult time representing this. It mandates a strict hierarchical arrangement of staff, even if the staff themselves does not view themselves as hierarchical. Because, in this arrangement, one person is usually granted the ability to terminate the employment of the other, there is necessarily an adversarial component to their relationship. Even if they work as peers, one has to report to a chain-of-command about the other. For people and teams who don't need this sort of arrangement, having it imposed absolutely sucks. But, because it so entrenched in corporate tradition, it emerges anyway. I rail against it as well. There are people who don't need it, but those who don't need or want this arrangement get it anyway, regardless of the detriment it causes. I get the sense this happens simply because of the perspective that it must necessarily happen, because people have all these preconceived notions about management and subordination that they have a hard time letting go. I think we'd lose the adversarial perspective if we lost the notions, and that would be a good thing.

stonemetal 17y ago

Subordinate may be too strong a word, but for the most part it is correct. To me, a manager is someone who makes sure I can get my work done and checks on the overall progress. And what work is that? For most people their manager sets project goals and direction.

CoreDumpling 17y ago

I don't mind being a subordinate so long as I can use the "just following orders" excuse whenever something blows up in a customer's face. Part of management's responsibility, after all, is to shield us mere developers from the ugliness out there. Sadly, I've dealt with management that was more interested in protecting themselves than the people they "managed."

cookiecaper 17y ago

It's given within the context of the organization. You are your boss's subordinate at the workplace. That's just a description of what you are there, there's nothing offensive about it. You're not subordinate to anyone regarding your life as a whole. If you're not a fan of your boss, you can quit and then he won't have authority over you anymore.

d3vvnull 17y ago

In the company I work for they use "direct report" to identify someone who reports directly to a manager or supervisor. But like it or not, "subordinate" is not so much a slam as it is a way to describe one's position in a hierarchical command structure.