3 ms·

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

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
    I guess at a place like Google, going above your manager makes sense. Like, where the fuck else are you going to go? It’s sort of only down from there, so certainly take the opportunity to maximize your career in that event. We are not far off in thinking. Do what makes sense strategically. I’ll stand by the point it is pointless to do this kind of stuff at a bumble fuck Fortune 500 company. Know the battlefield, best of luck.
    - yowlingcat 6y ago
      Yeah, I think we perhaps are violently agreeing with each other :) I /definitely/ agree with you that it's pointless to do this at an F500. Perhaps where my thinking comes from is that I've predominantly worked in startups, precisely to avoid this issue. That's not to say that startups prevent these issues -- far from it. Just that you get a different set of tools and a different environment that can often cut it out almost completely for a long period of time. The reason I argue so vehemently against normalizing this kind of stuff (even if it is normal at F500s) is that it can create a level of learned helplessness. When I worked at such a company, it was absolutely everywhere. Despite the fact that folks were well paid, they had a list of grievances a mile long that made every waking hour at work absolutely miserable. But whenever I asked why they didn't just leave for greener pastures, the answer was along the lines of that learned helplessness -- survival instinct, etc. For me, the answer was simply "I can do better than this elsewhere. I will vote with my feet." I think that sent a different message to the management chain, and I don't regret 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
  I guess at a place like Google, going above your manager makes sense. Like, where the fuck else are you going to go? It’s sort of only down from there, so certainly take the opportunity to maximize your career in that event. We are not far off in thinking. Do what makes sense strategically. I’ll stand by the point it is pointless to do this kind of stuff at a bumble fuck Fortune 500 company. Know the battlefield, best of luck.
  - yowlingcat 6y ago
    Yeah, I think we perhaps are violently agreeing with each other :) I /definitely/ agree with you that it's pointless to do this at an F500. Perhaps where my thinking comes from is that I've predominantly worked in startups, precisely to avoid this issue. That's not to say that startups prevent these issues -- far from it. Just that you get a different set of tools and a different environment that can often cut it out almost completely for a long period of time. The reason I argue so vehemently against normalizing this kind of stuff (even if it is normal at F500s) is that it can create a level of learned helplessness. When I worked at such a company, it was absolutely everywhere. Despite the fact that folks were well paid, they had a list of grievances a mile long that made every waking hour at work absolutely miserable. But whenever I asked why they didn't just leave for greener pastures, the answer was along the lines of that learned helplessness -- survival instinct, etc. For me, the answer was simply "I can do better than this elsewhere. I will vote with my feet." I think that sent a different message to the management chain, and I don't regret it.