3 ms·

The "coworker" seemed more like a superior. I'd also be wary of cancelling meetings with a hostile superior.

by raydev 8y ago

allenu 8y ago
Was he? He was just mentioned as "one of the other designers on the team". Anyway, most superiors I've dealt with are open to feedback about a meeting time. If a time doesn't work for me, it's not out of the question to request an adjustment. The author sounds like the kind of person who will just passively accept a situation instead of saying what he really thinks, leading to internalized anger and bitterness.
throwaway080383 8y ago
To me, it sounded like they all reported to Greg.
- raydev 8y ago
  Jim had seniority and apparently more clout. Just because OP wasn't directly reporting to Jim doesn't mean Jim wasn't a superior.
  - throwaway080383 8y ago
    Hm, odd definition of superior, but I work at a place where levels are secret and titles only reflect function.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  At places like Google, where peer reviews determine your bonuses and your career advancement, senior people on your team have to be handled politically. For a person coming in at a level 2, this means nearly everyone.
  - allenu 8y ago
    I've worked at a large software company with a similar review system in place and I think this attitude makes it sound like everyone is walking on egg shells and can't state what they really think for fear of offending someone in power. That's hardly the case. If someone "below" me had a problem with my scheduling or some things I was doing, I'd like them to tell me and not just act angry later on. People work together and generally try to be accommodating in large companies. But it does require people communicating their needs to each other and being fair. The poster sounded like he was holding a grudge against people and trying to power through things instead of having a frank discussion with other people. It sounds like they have talent, but they need work in working with others. I get that sometimes you know your ideas are much better than other people's, but at the end of the day you need to work with others and give and take a bit.
    - lern_too_spel 8y ago
      > I think this attitude makes it sound like everyone is walking on egg shells and can't state what they really think for fear of offending someone in power. That's hardly the case. The company has to explicitly foster an egoless culture to make fair peer reviews work, but egoless employees aren't going to present themselves well enough to get promotions. The system incentivizes politics. If you didn't see it in your team, your teammates hadn't learned to play the game yet.

The "coworker" seemed more like a superior. I'd also be wary of cancelling meetings with a hostile superior.

by raydev 8y ago

The "coworker" seemed more like a superior. I'd also be wary of cancelling meetings with a hostile superior.

Was he? He was just mentioned as "one of the other designers on the team". Anyway, most superiors I've dealt with are open to feedback about a meeting time. If a time doesn't work for me, it's not out of the question to request an adjustment. The author sounds like the kind of person who will just passively accept a situation instead of saying what he really thinks, leading to internalized anger and bitterness.

throwaway080383 8y ago

To me, it sounded like they all reported to Greg.

raydev 8y ago
Jim had seniority and apparently more clout. Just because OP wasn't directly reporting to Jim doesn't mean Jim wasn't a superior.
- throwaway080383 8y ago
  Hm, odd definition of superior, but I work at a place where levels are secret and titles only reflect function.
lern_too_spel 8y ago
At places like Google, where peer reviews determine your bonuses and your career advancement, senior people on your team have to be handled politically. For a person coming in at a level 2, this means nearly everyone.
- allenu 8y ago
  I've worked at a large software company with a similar review system in place and I think this attitude makes it sound like everyone is walking on egg shells and can't state what they really think for fear of offending someone in power. That's hardly the case. If someone "below" me had a problem with my scheduling or some things I was doing, I'd like them to tell me and not just act angry later on. People work together and generally try to be accommodating in large companies. But it does require people communicating their needs to each other and being fair. The poster sounded like he was holding a grudge against people and trying to power through things instead of having a frank discussion with other people. It sounds like they have talent, but they need work in working with others. I get that sometimes you know your ideas are much better than other people's, but at the end of the day you need to work with others and give and take a bit.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    > I think this attitude makes it sound like everyone is walking on egg shells and can't state what they really think for fear of offending someone in power. That's hardly the case. The company has to explicitly foster an egoless culture to make fair peer reviews work, but egoless employees aren't going to present themselves well enough to get promotions. The system incentivizes politics. If you didn't see it in your team, your teammates hadn't learned to play the game yet.