5 ms·

I find it so weird. Aren't there any bosses that say "Yeah, fuck you we're not doing that." That's the point of a boss. If I were in charge of a bunch of progra

I find it so weird. Aren't there any bosses that say "Yeah, fuck you we're not doing that." That's the point of a boss. If I were in charge of a bunch of programmers and a mandate came down from on high to rate programmers based on commits or keystrokes, my first response would be "Eat shit." and my second response would be "No, really, I'm not treating my people like dogs. Eat shit."

wing-_-nuts 4y ago
...and they'd pip you out in a few months, and you'd leave without a good reference. In reality, you'd realize it was horrible, but orders are orders, so most people would do it. If they found it particularly objectionable, they'd just look for another job in the meantime, but most folks who are not financially independent wouldn't take a stand for it.
- silksowed 4y ago
  people over leveraged in their personally lives don't seem to be able to take risks at work for the greater good. all it takes is 6 months of runway cash and i think more people would say "eat shit" instead of blindly following orders to help protect themselves
- softawre 4y ago
  This stuff happens all of the time. Middle management has to educate upper management on why certain metrics are bad. I do it all the time. Most recent one was length a PR was open. Some of my better devs opened PRs earlier and left them open for feedback longer, and I didn't want them penalized, so I communicated (with data) to management that it was a bad metric and we no longer measure it.
decebalus1 4y ago
> That's the point of a boss. I disagree. The point of a boss is to squeeze as much productivity as possible from contributors in order to meet business goals. If they do that as a humane understanding collaborator or as a micromanaging tyrant depends on two factors: what kind of person they are and how much leeway does upper management allow. If a boss is of the 'telling their boss to eat shit' variety, they're usually not going to stay a boss for long..

wing-_-nuts 4y ago

...and they'd pip you out in a few months, and you'd leave without a good reference. In reality, you'd realize it was horrible, but orders are orders, so most people would do it. If they found it particularly objectionable, they'd just look for another job in the meantime, but most folks who are not financially independent wouldn't take a stand for it.

silksowed 4y ago
people over leveraged in their personally lives don't seem to be able to take risks at work for the greater good. all it takes is 6 months of runway cash and i think more people would say "eat shit" instead of blindly following orders to help protect themselves
softawre 4y ago
This stuff happens all of the time. Middle management has to educate upper management on why certain metrics are bad. I do it all the time. Most recent one was length a PR was open. Some of my better devs opened PRs earlier and left them open for feedback longer, and I didn't want them penalized, so I communicated (with data) to management that it was a bad metric and we no longer measure it.

decebalus1 4y ago

> That's the point of a boss. I disagree. The point of a boss is to squeeze as much productivity as possible from contributors in order to meet business goals. If they do that as a humane understanding collaborator or as a micromanaging tyrant depends on two factors: what kind of person they are and how much leeway does upper management allow. If a boss is of the 'telling their boss to eat shit' variety, they're usually not going to stay a boss for long..