4 ms·

Well, what I think you're getting at is this kind of a tactic is inherently escalatory. But the truth is, if you want to get what you want, you need to be willi

Well, what I think you're getting at is this kind of a tactic is inherently escalatory. But the truth is, if you want to get what you want, you need to be willing to play hardball and apply leverage. Of course, the most important part of that is BATNA, which coincides with what you said -- find another job. Where I disagree with you is that it will ruin whatever relationship you have with various parts of the company. Going "above the chain of command" is actually pretty normal and institutionalized process at functional companies -- it's called the skip-level meeting, and it's a deliberate check/feedback mechanism on line managers over-extending on managing upwards rather than downwards. I'd actually argue the opposite point, which is that organizations that fail to properly implement skip-level meetings are missing out on an important mechanism which ensures the chain of command is performant and rooting out structural rot. As a spot check, my observations on every org I've worked at basically vindicate this.

runawaybottle 6y ago
So let’s reframe this. If you and your girl/guy have a relationship problem, and he/she goes to another man/woman to counsel, quite frankly, I’d never look at them the same again. Life is not perfect because humans are involved. People will take it some way. Anyway, for what it’s worth, I bypassed chain of command and it went exactly as you’d expect. If you are my girl, don’t cry on another man’s shoulder. These are stories of old. I don’t know, if this was a Stackoverflow question, which would be the best answer? Given how complicated life is, I’d wager my answer with a 50% probability, along with yours, is as close as we’ll get to a ‘best answer’, assuming we follow the spirit of the developer community.
- yowlingcat 6y ago
  I think you're proving my point unintentionally. If you're at the point where the relationship isn't working out, it's actually in everyone's best interest for you to break up and date other people. If you were happy, you wouldn't be looking. You became unhappy because you were unfulfilled in the relationship, because what you were looking for was something the other person could not provide, or vice versa. What is the virtuous thing to do? Is it to silently stew and settle, or is it to ask for what you want, and if you don't get it and think you can find it elsewhere, leave to do so? The answer is obvious. All the other stuff you mention about "never look[ing] at them the same again" is more related to your ego, sense of insecurity and lack of self awareness more than anything. Once you pare those away, the objective truth is incompatibility. It doesn't have to be emotional unless you let it.
  - runawaybottle 6y ago
    So in the business use case, you don’t want to forgo the paycheck in light of this. It’s the same relationship dynamic, but in the romantic sense you gain nothing, but in the business sense you rack up cash and tenure at the job, all of which can be flipped going forward (two years at a job, versus one year at a job). I guess that’s my point. If the relationship is fucked in a pure romantic relationship, you must move on. If the relationship is fucked in the business sense, there is still value in timing your exit. But if we turn to idealism at any point, we lose our tactical options (eg, I shall speak to the manager of my manager, and the world shall see how right I am). It can be folly. The survival instinct is not lauded enough. It can take you further if you shift to it, in the worst of situations.
    - yowlingcat 6y ago
      There's a difference between survival instinct and learned helplessness and antagonism. In a healthy organization, skip-level interactions are institutionalized as a feedback mechanism against mid-level managers presenting an oversanitized version of what's really happening to skips when from the skip's point of view, there could be ticking time bombs and they'd like to know. In fact, if there's discord between a manager and a report, it's often a great opportunity for a coachable moment between the manager and the skip -- a line manager who doesn't learn how to handle these situations with diplomacy, candor, tenderness and efficacy will struggle to earn influence in their desire to become a manager of managers. And that becomes the skip's problem because it impedes their ability to grow an influential and growing organization. It is only in a dysfunctional organization where a report talking to their skip is intrinsically adversarial to the line manager. Of course these situations aren't so rare as anyone would like (especially at stagnant big corporations), but it doesn't change the fact that if you work at such an organization, your career growth is pretty capped anyways and you may as well be looking for a new role regardless. Why? Learning how to play petty political games doesn't actually level up your fungible skillsets and ability to deliver customer value. You'll start over from square one when you eventually do want to switch companies, and you'll never get that time back you wasted on merely "surviving" when you could have been actually growing. People shoot their entire careers in the foot by settling this way.

runawaybottle 6y ago

So let’s reframe this. If you and your girl/guy have a relationship problem, and he/she goes to another man/woman to counsel, quite frankly, I’d never look at them the same again. Life is not perfect because humans are involved. People will take it some way. Anyway, for what it’s worth, I bypassed chain of command and it went exactly as you’d expect. If you are my girl, don’t cry on another man’s shoulder. These are stories of old. I don’t know, if this was a Stackoverflow question, which would be the best answer? Given how complicated life is, I’d wager my answer with a 50% probability, along with yours, is as close as we’ll get to a ‘best answer’, assuming we follow the spirit of the developer community.

yowlingcat 6y ago
I think you're proving my point unintentionally. If you're at the point where the relationship isn't working out, it's actually in everyone's best interest for you to break up and date other people. If you were happy, you wouldn't be looking. You became unhappy because you were unfulfilled in the relationship, because what you were looking for was something the other person could not provide, or vice versa. What is the virtuous thing to do? Is it to silently stew and settle, or is it to ask for what you want, and if you don't get it and think you can find it elsewhere, leave to do so? The answer is obvious. All the other stuff you mention about "never look[ing] at them the same again" is more related to your ego, sense of insecurity and lack of self awareness more than anything. Once you pare those away, the objective truth is incompatibility. It doesn't have to be emotional unless you let it.
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  So in the business use case, you don’t want to forgo the paycheck in light of this. It’s the same relationship dynamic, but in the romantic sense you gain nothing, but in the business sense you rack up cash and tenure at the job, all of which can be flipped going forward (two years at a job, versus one year at a job). I guess that’s my point. If the relationship is fucked in a pure romantic relationship, you must move on. If the relationship is fucked in the business sense, there is still value in timing your exit. But if we turn to idealism at any point, we lose our tactical options (eg, I shall speak to the manager of my manager, and the world shall see how right I am). It can be folly. The survival instinct is not lauded enough. It can take you further if you shift to it, in the worst of situations.
  - yowlingcat 6y ago
    There's a difference between survival instinct and learned helplessness and antagonism. In a healthy organization, skip-level interactions are institutionalized as a feedback mechanism against mid-level managers presenting an oversanitized version of what's really happening to skips when from the skip's point of view, there could be ticking time bombs and they'd like to know. In fact, if there's discord between a manager and a report, it's often a great opportunity for a coachable moment between the manager and the skip -- a line manager who doesn't learn how to handle these situations with diplomacy, candor, tenderness and efficacy will struggle to earn influence in their desire to become a manager of managers. And that becomes the skip's problem because it impedes their ability to grow an influential and growing organization. It is only in a dysfunctional organization where a report talking to their skip is intrinsically adversarial to the line manager. Of course these situations aren't so rare as anyone would like (especially at stagnant big corporations), but it doesn't change the fact that if you work at such an organization, your career growth is pretty capped anyways and you may as well be looking for a new role regardless. Why? Learning how to play petty political games doesn't actually level up your fungible skillsets and ability to deliver customer value. You'll start over from square one when you eventually do want to switch companies, and you'll never get that time back you wasted on merely "surviving" when you could have been actually growing. People shoot their entire careers in the foot by settling this way.