5 ms·

For your first part, you don't need to take over. But you should find a way to contribute. At the very least if there's an expectation that you drive meetings,

For your first part, you don't need to take over. But you should find a way to contribute. At the very least if there's an expectation that you drive meetings, but you want to defer because someone else has more knowledge in a specific area, you need to make it clear why you're deferring. For your second part, it seems like the questions are you asking are not stupid in themselves. Rather they are uncomfortable and/or threatening to the audience. Like your question is driving at a real point which is that likely no one actually sat down and tried to rationalize (quantitatively or however) the cost and benefits of their course of action. The "stupid" part is poking at this sensitive topic in ways that don't give people a graceful way to interact with it. Most people do not want to admit that they're just autopiloting a decision that might have made sense as a quick heuristic based on assumptions (which are okay!) that have since provided to be wrong and have just been running with it ever since. Or that no, they've never actually sat down and quantified (ballpark) how much company the strategy is costing them, and that they're just making stuff up. To back up to your original point, uncontrolled curiosity can definitely be harmful. You absolutely need to temper and control it, especially when interacting with human systems. That doesn't mean that curiosity is bad though. I do sympathize that the usual formulation of "there are no stupid questions here" is almost always misleading, and encodes a pile of unsaid assumptions.

giantg2 5y ago
There really shouldn't be a need to explain the deferral for each occurrence. I have explained it in general to my manager and participated, in my opinion, appropriately. They have not given concrete steps that they would like to see me take. For context, I'm only a midlevel dev. "The "stupid" part is poking at this sensitive topic" Exactly, but without bringing it up, that curiosity wouldn't be satisfied. They talk about being candid as a positive trait. It appears that isn't true - just typically corporate doublespeak.
- lazide 5y ago
  Everything is contextual, and I think you may be missing a bit EQ bit? You can drive a meeting while still deferring to experts by driving the meeting, and then bringing them in for their expertise when you know it is in their area - which you know when that is and who they are, because you would be an expert in knowing that. You seem to be sitting back in the meeting and waiting for something to add, which… yeah doesn’t add much? That’s inherently passive. And if they ask you to be candid, and then recoil when you are, that is potentially because you’re not wrapping up what you’re saying in a way they can process/handle - it could be overly abrasive, or verbose, or whatever. The reason you may not be getting any actionable advice is they are giving you why they see as actionable advice. But you’re missing a connection here because you’re missing the EQ piece?
  - giantg2 5y ago
    So everything is on me? I need to be the one wrapping my opinions in a way they can understand (which I do), and any (theortical) misunderstanding of their advice is also on me. Sounds like a bum deal. I don't think this is happening. Why else would they be saying that I'm well spoken and even diplomatic if these were the issues. They mostly don't like me to be candid when my opinion runs counter to theirs and I have points they don't want to counter. Yes, I can and do facilitate meetings. That's not a problem. They just want me to be loud and talkative in meetings that could have been emails, or at least with a much smaller group.
    - lazide 5y ago
      Then maybe find somewhere that does work for you? If you always feel you’re crazy, then it doesn’t fit.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        I don't feel I'm crazy. It's the job of management to manipulate people and look out for themselves. It will be the same or even worse at other places.
        lazide 5y ago
        FYI - that mindset right there is a huge problem and red flag, especially if you’re staying. I have never seen it be managements job to manipulate anyone anywhere. It is managements job to make the business work (manage it). In some places, the agreed upon way that management does this is by manipulating, lying, cheating, etc. Those places are toxic. It is also possible for people and workers to become toxic as a culture, and cause otherwise fine and well meaning behavior to be perceived as toxic and make a toxic workplace for everyone due to no/ineffective action from management. I’ve never seen it be just one side for very long, unless both sides are feeding it it. It builds a sick system, and like all systems, it has to be self reinforcing to continue to exist. I’m not saying everyone is perfect - far from it. I’m saying that lack of trust and perceived negative intent from others (especially in positions of authority), lack of a feeling of agency in getting a different outcome or impacting current conditions are all, etc. are a dark place to be, and one that does not help oneself get better. If you’re not even considering finding somewhere else, that produces very very bad outcomes for everyone in the long run. If you are not considering getting help in understanding or tackling the situation from your side, that also produces bad outcomes for you long term.

giantg2 5y ago

There really shouldn't be a need to explain the deferral for each occurrence. I have explained it in general to my manager and participated, in my opinion, appropriately. They have not given concrete steps that they would like to see me take. For context, I'm only a midlevel dev. "The "stupid" part is poking at this sensitive topic" Exactly, but without bringing it up, that curiosity wouldn't be satisfied. They talk about being candid as a positive trait. It appears that isn't true - just typically corporate doublespeak.

lazide 5y ago
Everything is contextual, and I think you may be missing a bit EQ bit? You can drive a meeting while still deferring to experts by driving the meeting, and then bringing them in for their expertise when you know it is in their area - which you know when that is and who they are, because you would be an expert in knowing that. You seem to be sitting back in the meeting and waiting for something to add, which… yeah doesn’t add much? That’s inherently passive. And if they ask you to be candid, and then recoil when you are, that is potentially because you’re not wrapping up what you’re saying in a way they can process/handle - it could be overly abrasive, or verbose, or whatever. The reason you may not be getting any actionable advice is they are giving you why they see as actionable advice. But you’re missing a connection here because you’re missing the EQ piece?
- giantg2 5y ago
  So everything is on me? I need to be the one wrapping my opinions in a way they can understand (which I do), and any (theortical) misunderstanding of their advice is also on me. Sounds like a bum deal. I don't think this is happening. Why else would they be saying that I'm well spoken and even diplomatic if these were the issues. They mostly don't like me to be candid when my opinion runs counter to theirs and I have points they don't want to counter. Yes, I can and do facilitate meetings. That's not a problem. They just want me to be loud and talkative in meetings that could have been emails, or at least with a much smaller group.
  - lazide 5y ago
    Then maybe find somewhere that does work for you? If you always feel you’re crazy, then it doesn’t fit.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      I don't feel I'm crazy. It's the job of management to manipulate people and look out for themselves. It will be the same or even worse at other places.
      - lazide 5y ago
        FYI - that mindset right there is a huge problem and red flag, especially if you’re staying. I have never seen it be managements job to manipulate anyone anywhere. It is managements job to make the business work (manage it). In some places, the agreed upon way that management does this is by manipulating, lying, cheating, etc. Those places are toxic. It is also possible for people and workers to become toxic as a culture, and cause otherwise fine and well meaning behavior to be perceived as toxic and make a toxic workplace for everyone due to no/ineffective action from management. I’ve never seen it be just one side for very long, unless both sides are feeding it it. It builds a sick system, and like all systems, it has to be self reinforcing to continue to exist. I’m not saying everyone is perfect - far from it. I’m saying that lack of trust and perceived negative intent from others (especially in positions of authority), lack of a feeling of agency in getting a different outcome or impacting current conditions are all, etc. are a dark place to be, and one that does not help oneself get better. If you’re not even considering finding somewhere else, that produces very very bad outcomes for everyone in the long run. If you are not considering getting help in understanding or tackling the situation from your side, that also produces bad outcomes for you long term.