9 ms·

How to disagree with someone more powerful than you (2016)

208 points by tomrod 4y ago

lawlorino 4y ago
Some of these seem reasonable, but I strongly dislike this one > Ask permission to disagree Maybe it's just poorly worded, but this seems too subordinate and gives off a parent-child power dynamic.
- projectazorian 4y ago
  > Maybe it's just poorly worded, but this seems too subordinate and gives off a parent-child power dynamic. When you are subordinate to the other party in the conversation and they view the situation through parent-child power dynamic applies, which is common in many business environments, this is good advice.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    imagine yourself as the more powerful/senior person in that dynamic. "Do you mind if I disagree with you?" Still good advice, it's polite.
jjzhiyuan 4y ago
Thinking more before talking? Straightforward but reasonable
hizxy 4y ago
Asking permission to disagree? Are they our parents?
- caprock 4y ago
  This sentiment is one I understand, and I'm not fond of deference to power either. That section of the article though, illustrates an example which I would say is useful when challenging any idea, not just one from a person with more "power". It's a small signal that you're going to challenge the ideas, and it gives the other party room to prepare. A social protocol if you will. There are quite a few good ideas in tfa. The power deference is frustrating, but it's also a reality with groups of humans. In the end, you can build up your own forms of informal power and social capital if you deal with this kind of situation pragmatically. As a result you can become someone people will trust to discuss ideas effectively.
- Jemaclus 4y ago
  You should probably read the rest of that paragraph. It specifically starts off with "this may seem overly deferential," and then goes into explaining it in more detail about what exactly they meant. The way I read it, it's not about asking permission, per se, it's about setting expectations. "Head's up, I'm about to disagree with you." Also by giving them this ability to "opt in" to the disagreement, you're creating a relationship based on trust. In other words, they're hearing you respectfully express your thoughts and feelings, and that makes them _more_ likely to listen to you in the future, versus just barging in with your thoughts unannounced. (Contrariwise, if they say "no" too many times, then they don't trust you or your opinions -- and that's information for you to do what you wish!) And sometimes? Your boss doesn't want you to disagree, they just want you to execute, saving both of you the time and energy of arguing. You may still disagree, and you may not like their decision to just execute, but at the end of the day, they're the boss and you aren't. You're free to get another job! As a leader in my company, I welcome disagreement early on. But at some point, we have to execute and we can't get stuck in a stalemate because I want A and you want B. Someone has to make a decision, and as the superior, that responsibility lies with me (or in some contexts, it lies with my superior, even if I disagree!). (P.S. You are allowed to disagree with your parents, too!)
  - AstralStorm 4y ago
    You're as free to get another job as your wallet and opportunity allows you. Usually that is not worth a lot. It also depends on what you're disagreeing about and whether your manager has enough of a pull to get it changed. Usually rank and file employees are barred from expressing opinions about strategy at all. Permission or not, you will get ignored. The best you may get is more work as an experiment, with little reward and low chances of success.
  - hizxy 4y ago
    Thanks for the clarification.
- xeromal 4y ago
  No, it's a strategy. I accidentally stumbled on the permission to disagree when arguing with my partner. We both do it now. Sometimes people aren't in the mood to argue/debate. When you ask permission, if they say yes, they usually keep their emotions in check. If they say no, you save the battle for another day. It's a great way to build respect.
  - nibbleshifter 4y ago
    Its arse licking. Instead of brown nosing, just disagree. If you ask permission to disagree, you don't tend to get respect. You become seen as a fucking doormat. Just speak plainly and clearly.
    - xeromal 4y ago
      Wife: Do I look fat? Me, speaking plainly and clearly, Yes Child: is the macaroni statue I made of you pretty? Me, speaking plainly and clearly, no, it's hoorendous
      - wombatpm 4y ago
        Wife: Do I look fat? Me: Only when compared to this stunning macaroni statue. I prefer to dodge answers and let others argue it out
      - nicoburns 4y ago
        Honestly, I wish people took this approach more often. Yes you look fat, and incredibly sexy. No, it’s not pretty, but I love that you’ve made a statue of me.
    - selimthegrim 4y ago
      What do you think “beg to differ” means?
moralestapia 4y ago
Just be honest and straightforward with whatever needs to be said, without being an ass. If that gets you in trouble and you have to leave the place, rest assured that you'll find a place where your traits are appreciated and your work life will be 1,000 times better.
- waboremo 4y ago
  Having to leave due to disagreeing affects you even if you eventually land somewhere else better. It absolutely alters the way you view that space between you and those with more influence than you, and you will likely do a bunch of added work trying to build yourself back up. Even if your confidence isn't shattered, you'll probably wind up doing a bunch of things mentioned in the article anyways, negating the advice of "just be honest". Unless of course you're stubborn, that does have its benefits sometimes! Also a lot of comments are coming at this from a boss -> employee role, but it also applies from a lesser known person on social media -> more influential person on social media too. Being honest and straightforward does not work there most of the time and leads to a lot of misunderstanding!
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > without being an ass. There's no definition of this, this is more of that don't be a dick stuff. What constitutes being a dick or an ass hinges on culture. If you're the new guy and everybody else is experienced and has worked with each other for a while, being an ass might mean opening your mouth at all. Whether you're right or not. > rest assured that you'll find a place where your traits are appreciated A lot of people don't appreciate the trait of pride in lacking social skills and tact or lack of awareness of one's surroundings or not understanding power structures. They'd have to worry about you saying something dumb to a client (even if you were right.)
  - moralestapia 4y ago
    >pride in lacking social skills and tact or lack of awareness of one's surroundings or not understanding power structures LOL, projecting too much I guess? I never implied any of that. >What constitutes being a dick or an ass hinges on culture. Nah. Or are you talking about circumstances like "I didn't knew that a handshake was offensive in this remote village"? Those things are extremely rare in business contexts, and even when they happen both parties usually laugh it off, as they both understand that the intent was not to offend. "Don't be a dick" is hard to describe, as you cannot put a 500-page book with all the specific situations written literally, which is the kind of thing that will please people like you. But, at the same time, every single person that's at least 12 years old have a sense of "this is right" vs. "this is not right". Don't lie, don't steal, there's a place for everything, if something ain't yours don't touch, I don't know, that sort of thing. If you don't get those things, or pretend not to get them because of some weird and extremely particular circumstances that you have to make up to justify it, well ... let's not work together then :).
whoevercares 4y ago
Have backbone, disagree and git commit
potamic 4y ago
Terrible article. Unfortunately, publishing in such a popular magazine normalizes the behaviour and makes people think this is how you have to behave in the business world. You have to treat all people with the same dignity. If you are having to treat powerful people differently, you need to look hard at the place you are in and the kind of class divide it promotes. It's fucking 2022. You want to disagree with someone, just disagree. It's a professional space and it's all adults in the room. If someone needs psychological safety before they are disagreed to, I say they need psychological help.
- robertk 4y ago
  In theory I agree with you. Unfortunately this is a very, um, privileged way of viewing this aspect of the world. A lifetime of selection bias clouds, wherefrom this strategy works for you, but would not if tried by an other.
  - elefanten 4y ago
    How do you know it’s not the opposite? That a lifetime of telling yourself it would be rejected ensures you never take risky chances that can drive success? Your assumption presumes just as much with similar effects.
    - site-packages1 4y ago
      I have seen many cases in my career where people with less power in an engagement thoughtfully but thoroughly disagree and end up getting relocated off their team, demoted, or in effect nullified from having any further input. I’ve seen this enough to have noticed that it’s often women who seem to be put in this position. I’ve never had the issues, as the prototypical HN poster demographic, and agree that the GP (?) post works for me, but fundamentally understand it’s also a strategy that can disproportionately lead to seriously bad outcomes for people in particular demographics.
      - bawolff 4y ago
thenerdhead 4y ago
These articles make it sound like people waste many hours creating cases for disagreeing with someone with more role power than you. It's really not that difficult to show the right amount of candor while being objective about the disagreement. This doesn't have to be a game of chess where you overanalyze your every move. People will respect the fact you said something that might be the elephant in the room anyway. The challenge is that these articles assume that you're working with vindictive egotists, and there's plenty of those in corporate America.
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  It's not that difficult if you've already developed the right instincts for how to do it. But many people haven't! They're immigrants who aren't quite familiar with American business norms, or they're neurodivergent and need guidelines for how to calibrate their candor, or maybe they just grew up in a strict household where their dad taught them to always defer to authority. If I'd read something like this it might have helped me skip a few unfortunate learning incidents early in my career.
- vii 4y ago
  Even worse, it normalizes being a vindictive egotist. People need to be grown up about feedback especially if they're in powerful positions. Not ok to be offended.
  - thenerdhead 4y ago
    Absolutely. The difference of a leader and a manager here is responding to disagreements.
- psd1 4y ago
  My comment ITT is about our own ability to raise or lower the emotional stakes in a conversation. I don't have a naturally high EQ, I have to exercise it and constantly reflect. I'm middle-aged (I worked solo in my first career). If I can reach 40 and still be learning social skills, maybe others here also could get better at: > It's really not that difficult to show the right amount of candor while being objective
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
Everything here seems pretty fine (if basic), So often I see engineers screw this up, usually by forgetting a few things: * They only have some of the information, and don’t account for that fact. * Their goals aren’t the same as a leader’s goals. * The leader has ownership of the larger outcome, and may want to make tradeoffs that are suboptimal for an individual person or team, but may ultimately be good for the overall outcome. * Being technically correct isn’t a “trump” card, it doesn’t mean everything. If I were a better writer I’d explain this better, but often you can tell who is used to thinking at a high level and who is used to hammering out details, based on these kind of conversations. Either you recognize your visibility and responsibility or you don’t.
boredemployee 4y ago
Staying calm and speaking slowly while arguing is the key for me. But there's one space where no trained skill seems to work: politics. I just avoid at all costs discussing politics with friends and family, because it simple leads to nowhere. Older people usually likes to stay in a position of power in those dicussions like "they know much more than us", so in the end I just stay quiet and "agree" because in the current state of things, people feel so much harmed by words that its better this way.
- draw_down 4y ago
- JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
  Well, it may be possible for you to simply not talk about politics, but for folks who have their rights stripped away, their water made undrinkable, their loved ones ripped from them or shunned for simply existing, should they also not talk about that with others? I doubt most folks who talk about politics really "want" to, as much as they feel a responsibility or need to do so out of compassion or even desperation. Nearly everyone would prefer if we all could just get along, but we don't get along, and pretending we do seems like a great way to just allow the majority to steamroll the minority.
  - boredemployee 4y ago
    Well, then that's a totally different aspect of it. You're speaking about politics as a weapon or a way of surviving under extremely difficult circumstances, which neither of us here, reading and posting on HN, are suffering. What I'm talking about is politics as a smalltalk subject, in a family/friendly environment.
    - FireSparrowWeld 4y ago
      I think you're talking about "discussing politics to shoot the shit" but I think it's really important you realize that you and I do that because we're lucky, and "eschewing discussion of political topics" is only something you get the privilege to do when you're not getting targeted.
ottoflux 4y ago
aka the subtle art of a55 kissing. if you’re open to it ;) imo we do a terrible job of training managers to be leaders instead of “bosses”. we have an absurd view of leadership equating to a person’s value being higher. it’s not. when you work in management you have a role to perform, but if you have a culture that has to work to assuage you in order to disagree with you then you should probably find a different job.
booleandilemma 4y ago
I'm finding that more and more I'm just starting to agree with people in power because I've realized that in the end it's not my money on the line anyway and arguing just isn't worth it. You want to use Redis as our primary db? Great idea, boss. You think tests violate DRY and you don't want me to write any? Sir, you're a genius.
- LinkLink 4y ago
  Theres a difference between acting your pay grade and letting other people shoot themselves in the foot and agreeing with dictators. Edit: Maybe there isn't actually.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - melony 4y ago
    Sir, you are a genius.
  - hollywood_court 4y ago
    Sometimes it is best to let your employer shoot themselves in the foot. It is often less stressful than arguing with them. I've certainly heard "I don't pay you to think" and "we'll do it my way because I say so" more than a few times. By the time I reached 25 or so, I just decided to roll with it because I was there to get paid and not to win any battles.
    - nikau 4y ago
      Yep after a while you learn which battles to fight - will the outcome make my life harder? sure I'll fight it hard. If its just a negative for the business but no impact on me I'll point out the issues but wont go any further than that.
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      Disagreeing is not arguing. You don’t have to fight decisions. You can politely point that you have reservations or questions about things without being confrontational.
nr2x 4y ago
Just be an Gigachad Alpha at all times.
- ajhurliman 4y ago
  Take your boss’s desk on the first day and use your protein powder to knock his family photos on the ground. Tear off your sleeves during your lunch hour and constantly mutter “what the fuck is this” as you’re looking through everyone’s PRs.
rodrigosetti 4y ago
This article makes me anxious because, when disagreeing, I never really considered the power difference before.
randcraw 4y ago
I would have benefitted greatly from taking the author's principles to heart when my career began 30+ years ago. I tend to be destructively critical. It has not served me well. The article makes a couple excellent points: 1) assure the listener that you both seek the same goal, 2) provide a solution, not just more problems. Negativity alone is poison. If you don't have better ideas to replace the ones you shoot down, say nothing. Nobody likes troublemakers. It also took me much too long to realize that most people enjoy debate far less than I do, especially those who need to act ASAP, like bosses.
- Bakary 4y ago
  It's not that people don't enjoy debate, it's that it's never just debate that's happening. Usually it's about attention-seeking, ego-feeding, controlling interactions, pleasure from ranting, and so on. It's similar to people who claim that they "tell it like it is". We understand what it means in practice and what sort of personality type to expect.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  You can disagree without being a troublemaker. Managers disagree amongst themselves all the time. Sometimes you have to disagree. Disagreeing doesn’t mean actively fighting things. I once spent six months disagreeing with my own customer about the validity of a planning and the ability of our suppliers to hit the deadlines they were announcing. People were very happy I had insisted on contingency plans when it became obvious the project was indeed going to be late.
dang 4y ago
Related: Ask HN: How to disagree with someone more powerful than you - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17834068 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17834068 - Aug 2018 (7 comments)
a_puppy 4y ago
I have mixed feelings about this kind of advice: * In a healthy team, you ideally shouldn't need special skills to disagree with someone more powerful than you. * But it's very common for teams to have some degree of egotism and dysfunction, so these are useful skills in practice. * But on the other hand, this article normalizes that egotism and dysfunction; it implies that the less-powerful person is responsible for working around the more-powerful person's ego, instead of the more-powerful person being responsible for keeping their ego in check. So even though it's useful advice for the individuals reading it, it subtly erodes the culture of the industry as a whole. And I want to push back on that. If you're in a position of power, it's your responsibility to make sure that people working with you don't need special skills to disagree with you or with other people on the team!
- junofan 4y ago
  Good points. The case studies seem great—maybe this advice is better presented that way?
- tbrownaw 4y ago
  Advising someone is a slightly different skill from taking advice from someone, and those are both slightly different skills from building consensus among equals. Hierarchies have different lines between "things I can change" and "things I can't change" for different positions. Arguing with your boss over something that's in their "things I can't change" bucket is maybe not so useful. > If you're in a position of power, it's your responsibility to make sure that people working with you don't need special skills to disagree with you or with other people on the team! Or alternatively, to make sure they have opportunities to acquire those skills.
  - a_puppy 4y ago
    > Or alternatively, to make sure they have opportunities to acquire those skills. I think it depends what level of interpersonal skills we're talking about. If we're talking about baseline interpersonal skills like "being polite" and "understanding the other person's position before disagreeing with it", then I agree it's appropriate to hold the less-powerful person responsible for acquiring those skills. But some of the tips in this article are more advanced, next-level skills that can be difficult to develop. And even with these skills, there's no guarantee of success if the more-powerful person is too egotistical. A failure mode I've seen is that the less-powerful person is actually being polite and reasonable, but the more-powerful person's manager doesn't want to hold them accountable for their egotism, so the manager says the less-powerful person needs to work on their interpersonal skills instead. (Related: https://lethain.com/hard-to-work-with/ https://lethain.com/hard-to-work-with/)
eointierney 4y ago
Power is the ability to do work quickly. If some is arguing, and they are more powerful, they can "work through" argumentation faster than you. Therefore someone who is more powerful than you can argue faster and more effectively. If you wish to disagree you must be both demonstrably correct and able to provide the work. "Here's one I prepared earlier" is most effective as long as the preparation is demonstrably correct. Take your time, make sure you know how to argue all aspects clearly and fully, and be patient. The powerful, such as they are, tend to be impatient. The wise let others work, both separately and together, and build on all available agreement.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  This is a good way of summing up the effect. Although power also has the ability to screw up quickly unchecked, because they can bulldoze badly thought through ideas into action.
- saila 4y ago
  > Power is the ability to do work quickly This is absolutely not the definition of power. Perhaps it should be, but in the real world there is only a tenuous correlation between competence and power. When a person has attained power, they are often less compelled to provide sound argumentation for a perspective or solution. This can be expedient, assuming competence, but it can also lead to anything from wasted resources to the downfall of empires. Rather than placing the onus on those with less power, I'd say those with more power should remain humble and open to new perspectives, and impatience should be taken as a signal to guide those with less power, experience, and/or skill.
  - ip26 4y ago
    We can rephrase it - power is the ability to bring a lot of work capacity to bear, e.g. of other people.
- raldi 4y ago
  > Power is the ability to do work quickly This only makes sense if you’re talking about the physics equation P=W/t
quickthrower2 4y ago
There should be advice for the more powerful person. Maybe they don't think they need advice? After all - they made it. They are the smarter one right! But that is incorrect - their ego is probably costing them. By default, they should make it super easy for anyone to disagree. Beyond that they should make it so there are very few instances where there needs to be a discussion like that. Because they have properly delegated authority and trust to teams to get stuff done. When the powerful person things the team has done it wrong, ideally, they should pop in and say, "let me understand what you are doing and why". In other words: the powerful person should adopt the role of the humble person, following the advice of that article. In this way you won't kill good ideas, you won't kill important whistle blows (of the "this would lead to a fuckup" type, as well as the "this is illegal" type), and frustrated good people won't silent quit or loud quit.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
inopinatus 4y ago
If you’re in a position of authority, and someone starts this level of obsequious bullshit, please put them at ease as soon as possible, then fix your culture. No-one should have to burn so much excess energy just to pipe up. I always liked the meeting style where folks voice their opinions in ascending order of seniority. Someone told me this comes from Japan. I can’t confirm the origin but it’s certainly a neat way of defusing automatic deference to a senior voice.
- psd1 4y ago
  That's a good idea!
Joel_Mckay 4y ago
Hofstede’s Power distance Index is different across cultures. In North America it is generally quite low, and most managers become acutely sensitive to manipulative/sycophantic antics unless completely blinded by narcissism. It also ties into management styles, and how staff treat each other. Generally, if people are jerks it is a defensive mechanism masking an insecurity about their role at a firm. Personally, I preferred the competent and bluntly honest over someone acting agreeable.. telling people what they think they need to hear. My advice, Manage or be Managed by amateurs. Eventually someone needs to take fiscal responsibility, and bring down the hammer on liabilities. This is why most CEOs I knew became rather prickly personalities after a few years if they liaised in managerial roles.
dschuetz 4y ago
Very often the person "more powerful than you" in question is a closeted, or unknowing, sociopath, or psychopath (I am using the terms by definition, no judgement) and your opinion still might be interpreted as an attack, regardless of reasoning. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/the-science-behind-why-so-many-successful-millionaires-are-psychopaths-and-why-it-doesnt-have-to-be-a-bad-thing.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/the-science-behind-why-so-ma... It is very difficult to work with such people. So, be extra careful when challenging anything that is on the agenda of a sociopath boss. You've been warned.
k__ 4y ago
The problem I saw wasn't that they were angry at my ideas. It was that they simply ignored them. I met so many C-level people who simply have the assumption they're always right. Either that or they they don't care at all.
philjohn 4y ago
An old manager gave me something I almost consider a superpower - a simple technique that works for this very well. Ask questions. That's it. Turns out, either you're wrong, and the answers to the questions will make you ralise this, or they're wrong, and them answering the questions will guide them to the mistake. Telling someone, even respectfully, that they're wrong can kick off defense mechanisms, no matter how experienced they are.
- nathias 4y ago
  this only works on complete morons, anyone else will know what is happening and probably be more annoyed that you think of him as a moron ...
  - account-5 4y ago
    I don't agree, unless you're asking questions sarcastically or questions with obvious answers; if you're asking questions as a genuine means to try and understand what they are talking about, making no assumptions that they are wrong, only a moron would get annoyed at having to explain their thinking. A moron, or someone who knows they are wrong.
    - philjohn 4y ago
      This. Asking genuine questions is the key - as is starting from the assumption that, hey, I might be completely wrong here - I want to understand this.
HellDunkel 4y ago
All of this is true, yet none of the above will fix what is broken in our world. Solid advice for climbing the company ladder.
andrewstuart 4y ago
I once worked somewhere that the boss strongly encouraged feedback and ideas from his team members (me), and whenever I actually put forward an idea he didn't do it and found a way to explain that it didn't make sense. Of course I gave up contributing ideas very quickly.
psd1 4y ago
Something that works for me. I care about technical issues. Too much probably. I tend to be _that guy_. So my emotional investment comes out in my tone. My team lead then gets invested himself. At that point, the technical issue is just a firm, what's happening really is an emotional battle to dominate the frame. It's a zero-sum game. What I do now: make the pitch of my voice go down at the end of sentences, not up. This makes me sound detached; bored, even. Not only does this take away the emotional element, I find that the team lead mirrors me. His tone starts dropping, too. At that point we aren't butting heads; we're side by side, looking at the issue. I wonder how much of our interpersonal conflict has been me speaking in a high emotional key and dragging the discourse to a heightened emotional state.
logical_ferry 4y ago
I have zero interest in getting on my boss' bad side. I will definitely express my opinion and that is enough for me. If the higher up still pushes for doing things his way, so be it. I did my part.
Buttons840 4y ago
The book Crucial Conversations is quite good and deals with this. The author says to avoid the "Fool's Choice", which is "I can be honest or maintain a good relationship, but not both". The author's own one-sentence summary is "be 100% honest, and 100% respectful". Stated like that, I realized I could be honest in a smart way and not damage my relationships. Of course, sometimes we still end up not getting our way. I recommend this book. I've also realized I should avoid any extraordinary efforts to "cover my ass" against abusive leaders. If they're going to be abusive, I don't need an ironclad defense to rub their noses in, I just need to get out. And I need not feel ashamed of not having that ironclad defense nor of reacting poorly to their aggression; like anyone abused by those in a position of power, I'm not at fault and need not be ashamed. Decent people will accept "we talked about this last month and you said..." just as well as they'll accept a written paper trail. This isn't to say never document things, but don't do it as a crutch for bad leaders; don't obsess about it, you shouldn't have to use it as a coping mechanism.
jollybean 4y ago
I think the biggest issue not mentioned is to not do it in public. Public arguments can be perceived as a threat to power even if the disagreement is fully benign on both sides, it's hard to argue in the commons. Better to do it in private. More often than not, tow the company/managers line in public. It's really, really hard to manage and having dissent which could appear to be arbitrary (even if it's not) is hard. In other words, 'in the commons' it's populism, 'in private' it can be authentic, so take it to the office.
atlgator 4y ago
I disagree with the premise of someone being more powerful. What does power mean? You serve a role in an organization and have expertise. It’s your duty to provide that expertise to the firm and/or its clients, no matter their level. That’s what they PAY you for. Sure, you can be overruled by those above you that have different responsibilities or motivations, but you still have to provide your expertise for the position you’re in.
As_You_Wish 4y ago
This is a bizarre article to me. I always look at it as if it is my job to disagree and let anyone know about it who needs to know. In a polite and diplomaitic way, the same as any other conversation. Not voicing one's thoughts can have a dire effect on a business, a division, a group, and/or an individual. We are all there to voice our disagreements, it's why we are hired in the first place. I have never had a boss who didn't want my disagreement, my questions, my thoughts. Not once. I've had a lot of jobs. I guess it isn't impossible to have a boss like that, but I think it would be fairly rare. If it did happen to me, I'd figure it out, and then start applying for new jobs, if it was reasonable and possible. If not, then I'd just STFU and keep my head down. But, I guess this article is for people who don't feel comfortable with being assertive, but then, to me, that means someone is not assertive in everything, including asking for a raise. In this case, you should honestly go to a therapist who specializes in assertiveness training. Truly. It would be a fantastic investment. Both men and women should be assertive. Both men and women have problems with assertiveness. And I don't mean to sound sexist, but especially women have problems with this. I personally think that is maybe 60% why women get paid less than men, because men are on a whole more aggressive. Not all, but statistically. I don't have published statistics on this, but I do have a ton of anecdotal stories that indicate at least to me that's the case. I've known extremely assertive women and they make as much money and more than men, and I've known women who are not assertive and miss out on raises. Again, it is the same with men, but I think it's more with women that are like this, for a lot of reasons. One anecdotal story - I was hired the exact same day as a woman who was better than me at the job, I knew this factually from day 1. No doubt. The hiring guy, the owner, said that after 30 days, he would re-evaluate and if he like our performance, would increase salary. On day 30, I was in front of his desk, and he doubled my pay rate. From $60 to $120 per hour. Not bad. 6 months later, this same woman comes up to me and says, "Did you get a raise? How much?" So I said yes, I asked 30 days after he said to ask, didn't you???" She said no. So that means I was paid 100% more than a woman that was way more qualified than I. To me, that is her fault that she didn't get paid as much as me, a less qualified man. It would be another man's fault, too, if he didn't ask for the raise. She's a fucking grown-ass woman, am I supposed to do everything for her, double-check all her work and her everything? Is the boss? And, I'm sure as there are stars in the sky, if I did, she or some other woman would come at me with the whole "patronizing" and "mansplaining" stuff if I asked stuff like that..."Oh, you don't think women can do what men do? SEXISM." I KNOW there are some other women who would be there on day 30. But I think most women, and a lot, lot, lot of men just to be rewarded for their work without asking, that the bosses should just pay them more and see their contributions. This is what a child does, they expect mommy and daddy to give them things without asking. I think that "equal pay for equal work" is not entirely accurate. Sure, some is, maybe 5-10%. But I think the real saying should be "equal pay for equal assertiveness and aggressiveness." It is a fact everywhere I've been - Assertive people make more money. "Equal pay for equal work" is so passive and dependent, like an infant. Man up. Woman up. Open your mouth. I hope no one sees this as "mansplaining" or "sexist". I WANT women, and men, to get paid their full value by being politely and diplomatically assertive in all areas of life, not just work or income. I'm writing all of this, because maybe you all (women and men) are much younger than I am and you have never really thought of this in depth. Maybe you have thought about it a little but no one has ever been straight up with you. So go to a therapist for assertiveness training, if you have problems with being assertive. It's probably the best money and time you'll ever spend. Also, you can read articles about assertiveness training https://www.google.com/search?q=assertiveness+skills https://www.google.com/search?q=assertiveness+skills You can also watch videos https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=assertiveness+skills https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=assertiveness+s... And use a therapist. Do all these things, learn from multiple sources.
JohnFen 4y ago
Interesting. I disagree with "more powerful" people the same way I disagree with anyone else: I state my disagreement and the reasons why I disagree. It never occurred to me to treat those higher up the org chart any differently than anyone else.

208 points by tomrod 4y ago

Some of these seem reasonable, but I strongly dislike this one > Ask permission to disagree Maybe it's just poorly worded, but this seems too subordinate and gives off a parent-child power dynamic.

projectazorian 4y ago
> Maybe it's just poorly worded, but this seems too subordinate and gives off a parent-child power dynamic. When you are subordinate to the other party in the conversation and they view the situation through parent-child power dynamic applies, which is common in many business environments, this is good advice.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  imagine yourself as the more powerful/senior person in that dynamic. "Do you mind if I disagree with you?" Still good advice, it's polite.

jjzhiyuan 4y ago

Thinking more before talking? Straightforward but reasonable

hizxy 4y ago

Asking permission to disagree? Are they our parents?

caprock 4y ago
This sentiment is one I understand, and I'm not fond of deference to power either. That section of the article though, illustrates an example which I would say is useful when challenging any idea, not just one from a person with more "power". It's a small signal that you're going to challenge the ideas, and it gives the other party room to prepare. A social protocol if you will. There are quite a few good ideas in tfa. The power deference is frustrating, but it's also a reality with groups of humans. In the end, you can build up your own forms of informal power and social capital if you deal with this kind of situation pragmatically. As a result you can become someone people will trust to discuss ideas effectively.
Jemaclus 4y ago
You should probably read the rest of that paragraph. It specifically starts off with "this may seem overly deferential," and then goes into explaining it in more detail about what exactly they meant. The way I read it, it's not about asking permission, per se, it's about setting expectations. "Head's up, I'm about to disagree with you." Also by giving them this ability to "opt in" to the disagreement, you're creating a relationship based on trust. In other words, they're hearing you respectfully express your thoughts and feelings, and that makes them _more_ likely to listen to you in the future, versus just barging in with your thoughts unannounced. (Contrariwise, if they say "no" too many times, then they don't trust you or your opinions -- and that's information for you to do what you wish!) And sometimes? Your boss doesn't want you to disagree, they just want you to execute, saving both of you the time and energy of arguing. You may still disagree, and you may not like their decision to just execute, but at the end of the day, they're the boss and you aren't. You're free to get another job! As a leader in my company, I welcome disagreement early on. But at some point, we have to execute and we can't get stuck in a stalemate because I want A and you want B. Someone has to make a decision, and as the superior, that responsibility lies with me (or in some contexts, it lies with my superior, even if I disagree!). (P.S. You are allowed to disagree with your parents, too!)
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  You're as free to get another job as your wallet and opportunity allows you. Usually that is not worth a lot. It also depends on what you're disagreeing about and whether your manager has enough of a pull to get it changed. Usually rank and file employees are barred from expressing opinions about strategy at all. Permission or not, you will get ignored. The best you may get is more work as an experiment, with little reward and low chances of success.
- hizxy 4y ago
  Thanks for the clarification.
xeromal 4y ago
No, it's a strategy. I accidentally stumbled on the permission to disagree when arguing with my partner. We both do it now. Sometimes people aren't in the mood to argue/debate. When you ask permission, if they say yes, they usually keep their emotions in check. If they say no, you save the battle for another day. It's a great way to build respect.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  Its arse licking. Instead of brown nosing, just disagree. If you ask permission to disagree, you don't tend to get respect. You become seen as a fucking doormat. Just speak plainly and clearly.
  - xeromal 4y ago
    Wife: Do I look fat? Me, speaking plainly and clearly, Yes Child: is the macaroni statue I made of you pretty? Me, speaking plainly and clearly, no, it's hoorendous
    - wombatpm 4y ago
      Wife: Do I look fat? Me: Only when compared to this stunning macaroni statue. I prefer to dodge answers and let others argue it out
    - nicoburns 4y ago
      Honestly, I wish people took this approach more often. Yes you look fat, and incredibly sexy. No, it’s not pretty, but I love that you’ve made a statue of me.
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    What do you think “beg to differ” means?

moralestapia 4y ago

Just be honest and straightforward with whatever needs to be said, without being an ass. If that gets you in trouble and you have to leave the place, rest assured that you'll find a place where your traits are appreciated and your work life will be 1,000 times better.

waboremo 4y ago
Having to leave due to disagreeing affects you even if you eventually land somewhere else better. It absolutely alters the way you view that space between you and those with more influence than you, and you will likely do a bunch of added work trying to build yourself back up. Even if your confidence isn't shattered, you'll probably wind up doing a bunch of things mentioned in the article anyways, negating the advice of "just be honest". Unless of course you're stubborn, that does have its benefits sometimes! Also a lot of comments are coming at this from a boss -> employee role, but it also applies from a lesser known person on social media -> more influential person on social media too. Being honest and straightforward does not work there most of the time and leads to a lot of misunderstanding!
pessimizer 4y ago
> without being an ass. There's no definition of this, this is more of that don't be a dick stuff. What constitutes being a dick or an ass hinges on culture. If you're the new guy and everybody else is experienced and has worked with each other for a while, being an ass might mean opening your mouth at all. Whether you're right or not. > rest assured that you'll find a place where your traits are appreciated A lot of people don't appreciate the trait of pride in lacking social skills and tact or lack of awareness of one's surroundings or not understanding power structures. They'd have to worry about you saying something dumb to a client (even if you were right.)
- moralestapia 4y ago
  >pride in lacking social skills and tact or lack of awareness of one's surroundings or not understanding power structures LOL, projecting too much I guess? I never implied any of that. >What constitutes being a dick or an ass hinges on culture. Nah. Or are you talking about circumstances like "I didn't knew that a handshake was offensive in this remote village"? Those things are extremely rare in business contexts, and even when they happen both parties usually laugh it off, as they both understand that the intent was not to offend. "Don't be a dick" is hard to describe, as you cannot put a 500-page book with all the specific situations written literally, which is the kind of thing that will please people like you. But, at the same time, every single person that's at least 12 years old have a sense of "this is right" vs. "this is not right". Don't lie, don't steal, there's a place for everything, if something ain't yours don't touch, I don't know, that sort of thing. If you don't get those things, or pretend not to get them because of some weird and extremely particular circumstances that you have to make up to justify it, well ... let's not work together then :).

whoevercares 4y ago

Have backbone, disagree and git commit

potamic 4y ago

Terrible article. Unfortunately, publishing in such a popular magazine normalizes the behaviour and makes people think this is how you have to behave in the business world. You have to treat all people with the same dignity. If you are having to treat powerful people differently, you need to look hard at the place you are in and the kind of class divide it promotes. It's fucking 2022. You want to disagree with someone, just disagree. It's a professional space and it's all adults in the room. If someone needs psychological safety before they are disagreed to, I say they need psychological help.

robertk 4y ago
In theory I agree with you. Unfortunately this is a very, um, privileged way of viewing this aspect of the world. A lifetime of selection bias clouds, wherefrom this strategy works for you, but would not if tried by an other.
- elefanten 4y ago
  How do you know it’s not the opposite? That a lifetime of telling yourself it would be rejected ensures you never take risky chances that can drive success? Your assumption presumes just as much with similar effects.
  - site-packages1 4y ago
    I have seen many cases in my career where people with less power in an engagement thoughtfully but thoroughly disagree and end up getting relocated off their team, demoted, or in effect nullified from having any further input. I’ve seen this enough to have noticed that it’s often women who seem to be put in this position. I’ve never had the issues, as the prototypical HN poster demographic, and agree that the GP (?) post works for me, but fundamentally understand it’s also a strategy that can disproportionately lead to seriously bad outcomes for people in particular demographics.
    - bawolff 4y ago

thenerdhead 4y ago

These articles make it sound like people waste many hours creating cases for disagreeing with someone with more role power than you. It's really not that difficult to show the right amount of candor while being objective about the disagreement. This doesn't have to be a game of chess where you overanalyze your every move. People will respect the fact you said something that might be the elephant in the room anyway. The challenge is that these articles assume that you're working with vindictive egotists, and there's plenty of those in corporate America.

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
It's not that difficult if you've already developed the right instincts for how to do it. But many people haven't! They're immigrants who aren't quite familiar with American business norms, or they're neurodivergent and need guidelines for how to calibrate their candor, or maybe they just grew up in a strict household where their dad taught them to always defer to authority. If I'd read something like this it might have helped me skip a few unfortunate learning incidents early in my career.
vii 4y ago
Even worse, it normalizes being a vindictive egotist. People need to be grown up about feedback especially if they're in powerful positions. Not ok to be offended.
- thenerdhead 4y ago
  Absolutely. The difference of a leader and a manager here is responding to disagreements.
psd1 4y ago
My comment ITT is about our own ability to raise or lower the emotional stakes in a conversation. I don't have a naturally high EQ, I have to exercise it and constantly reflect. I'm middle-aged (I worked solo in my first career). If I can reach 40 and still be learning social skills, maybe others here also could get better at: > It's really not that difficult to show the right amount of candor while being objective

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

JimmieMcnulty 4y ago

Everything here seems pretty fine (if basic), So often I see engineers screw this up, usually by forgetting a few things: * They only have some of the information, and don’t account for that fact. * Their goals aren’t the same as a leader’s goals. * The leader has ownership of the larger outcome, and may want to make tradeoffs that are suboptimal for an individual person or team, but may ultimately be good for the overall outcome. * Being technically correct isn’t a “trump” card, it doesn’t mean everything. If I were a better writer I’d explain this better, but often you can tell who is used to thinking at a high level and who is used to hammering out details, based on these kind of conversations. Either you recognize your visibility and responsibility or you don’t.

boredemployee 4y ago

Staying calm and speaking slowly while arguing is the key for me. But there's one space where no trained skill seems to work: politics. I just avoid at all costs discussing politics with friends and family, because it simple leads to nowhere. Older people usually likes to stay in a position of power in those dicussions like "they know much more than us", so in the end I just stay quiet and "agree" because in the current state of things, people feel so much harmed by words that its better this way.

draw_down 4y ago
JimmieMcnulty 4y ago
Well, it may be possible for you to simply not talk about politics, but for folks who have their rights stripped away, their water made undrinkable, their loved ones ripped from them or shunned for simply existing, should they also not talk about that with others? I doubt most folks who talk about politics really "want" to, as much as they feel a responsibility or need to do so out of compassion or even desperation. Nearly everyone would prefer if we all could just get along, but we don't get along, and pretending we do seems like a great way to just allow the majority to steamroll the minority.
- boredemployee 4y ago
  Well, then that's a totally different aspect of it. You're speaking about politics as a weapon or a way of surviving under extremely difficult circumstances, which neither of us here, reading and posting on HN, are suffering. What I'm talking about is politics as a smalltalk subject, in a family/friendly environment.
  - FireSparrowWeld 4y ago
    I think you're talking about "discussing politics to shoot the shit" but I think it's really important you realize that you and I do that because we're lucky, and "eschewing discussion of political topics" is only something you get the privilege to do when you're not getting targeted.

ottoflux 4y ago

aka the subtle art of a55 kissing. if you’re open to it ;) imo we do a terrible job of training managers to be leaders instead of “bosses”. we have an absurd view of leadership equating to a person’s value being higher. it’s not. when you work in management you have a role to perform, but if you have a culture that has to work to assuage you in order to disagree with you then you should probably find a different job.

booleandilemma 4y ago

I'm finding that more and more I'm just starting to agree with people in power because I've realized that in the end it's not my money on the line anyway and arguing just isn't worth it. You want to use Redis as our primary db? Great idea, boss. You think tests violate DRY and you don't want me to write any? Sir, you're a genius.

LinkLink 4y ago
Theres a difference between acting your pay grade and letting other people shoot themselves in the foot and agreeing with dictators. Edit: Maybe there isn't actually.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- melony 4y ago
  Sir, you are a genius.
- hollywood_court 4y ago
  Sometimes it is best to let your employer shoot themselves in the foot. It is often less stressful than arguing with them. I've certainly heard "I don't pay you to think" and "we'll do it my way because I say so" more than a few times. By the time I reached 25 or so, I just decided to roll with it because I was there to get paid and not to win any battles.
  - nikau 4y ago
    Yep after a while you learn which battles to fight - will the outcome make my life harder? sure I'll fight it hard. If its just a negative for the business but no impact on me I'll point out the issues but wont go any further than that.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    Disagreeing is not arguing. You don’t have to fight decisions. You can politely point that you have reservations or questions about things without being confrontational.

nr2x 4y ago

Just be an Gigachad Alpha at all times.

ajhurliman 4y ago
Take your boss’s desk on the first day and use your protein powder to knock his family photos on the ground. Tear off your sleeves during your lunch hour and constantly mutter “what the fuck is this” as you’re looking through everyone’s PRs.

rodrigosetti 4y ago

This article makes me anxious because, when disagreeing, I never really considered the power difference before.

randcraw 4y ago

I would have benefitted greatly from taking the author's principles to heart when my career began 30+ years ago. I tend to be destructively critical. It has not served me well. The article makes a couple excellent points: 1) assure the listener that you both seek the same goal, 2) provide a solution, not just more problems. Negativity alone is poison. If you don't have better ideas to replace the ones you shoot down, say nothing. Nobody likes troublemakers. It also took me much too long to realize that most people enjoy debate far less than I do, especially those who need to act ASAP, like bosses.

Bakary 4y ago
It's not that people don't enjoy debate, it's that it's never just debate that's happening. Usually it's about attention-seeking, ego-feeding, controlling interactions, pleasure from ranting, and so on. It's similar to people who claim that they "tell it like it is". We understand what it means in practice and what sort of personality type to expect.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
You can disagree without being a troublemaker. Managers disagree amongst themselves all the time. Sometimes you have to disagree. Disagreeing doesn’t mean actively fighting things. I once spent six months disagreeing with my own customer about the validity of a planning and the ability of our suppliers to hit the deadlines they were announcing. People were very happy I had insisted on contingency plans when it became obvious the project was indeed going to be late.

dang 4y ago

Related: Ask HN: How to disagree with someone more powerful than you - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17834068 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17834068 - Aug 2018 (7 comments)

a_puppy 4y ago

I have mixed feelings about this kind of advice: * In a healthy team, you ideally shouldn't need special skills to disagree with someone more powerful than you. * But it's very common for teams to have some degree of egotism and dysfunction, so these are useful skills in practice. * But on the other hand, this article normalizes that egotism and dysfunction; it implies that the less-powerful person is responsible for working around the more-powerful person's ego, instead of the more-powerful person being responsible for keeping their ego in check. So even though it's useful advice for the individuals reading it, it subtly erodes the culture of the industry as a whole. And I want to push back on that. If you're in a position of power, it's your responsibility to make sure that people working with you don't need special skills to disagree with you or with other people on the team!

junofan 4y ago
Good points. The case studies seem great—maybe this advice is better presented that way?
tbrownaw 4y ago
Advising someone is a slightly different skill from taking advice from someone, and those are both slightly different skills from building consensus among equals. Hierarchies have different lines between "things I can change" and "things I can't change" for different positions. Arguing with your boss over something that's in their "things I can't change" bucket is maybe not so useful. > If you're in a position of power, it's your responsibility to make sure that people working with you don't need special skills to disagree with you or with other people on the team! Or alternatively, to make sure they have opportunities to acquire those skills.
- a_puppy 4y ago
  > Or alternatively, to make sure they have opportunities to acquire those skills. I think it depends what level of interpersonal skills we're talking about. If we're talking about baseline interpersonal skills like "being polite" and "understanding the other person's position before disagreeing with it", then I agree it's appropriate to hold the less-powerful person responsible for acquiring those skills. But some of the tips in this article are more advanced, next-level skills that can be difficult to develop. And even with these skills, there's no guarantee of success if the more-powerful person is too egotistical. A failure mode I've seen is that the less-powerful person is actually being polite and reasonable, but the more-powerful person's manager doesn't want to hold them accountable for their egotism, so the manager says the less-powerful person needs to work on their interpersonal skills instead. (Related: https://lethain.com/hard-to-work-with/ https://lethain.com/hard-to-work-with/)

eointierney 4y ago

Power is the ability to do work quickly. If some is arguing, and they are more powerful, they can "work through" argumentation faster than you. Therefore someone who is more powerful than you can argue faster and more effectively. If you wish to disagree you must be both demonstrably correct and able to provide the work. "Here's one I prepared earlier" is most effective as long as the preparation is demonstrably correct. Take your time, make sure you know how to argue all aspects clearly and fully, and be patient. The powerful, such as they are, tend to be impatient. The wise let others work, both separately and together, and build on all available agreement.

quickthrower2 4y ago
This is a good way of summing up the effect. Although power also has the ability to screw up quickly unchecked, because they can bulldoze badly thought through ideas into action.
saila 4y ago
> Power is the ability to do work quickly This is absolutely not the definition of power. Perhaps it should be, but in the real world there is only a tenuous correlation between competence and power. When a person has attained power, they are often less compelled to provide sound argumentation for a perspective or solution. This can be expedient, assuming competence, but it can also lead to anything from wasted resources to the downfall of empires. Rather than placing the onus on those with less power, I'd say those with more power should remain humble and open to new perspectives, and impatience should be taken as a signal to guide those with less power, experience, and/or skill.
- ip26 4y ago
  We can rephrase it - power is the ability to bring a lot of work capacity to bear, e.g. of other people.
raldi 4y ago
> Power is the ability to do work quickly This only makes sense if you’re talking about the physics equation P=W/t

quickthrower2 4y ago

There should be advice for the more powerful person. Maybe they don't think they need advice? After all - they made it. They are the smarter one right! But that is incorrect - their ego is probably costing them. By default, they should make it super easy for anyone to disagree. Beyond that they should make it so there are very few instances where there needs to be a discussion like that. Because they have properly delegated authority and trust to teams to get stuff done. When the powerful person things the team has done it wrong, ideally, they should pop in and say, "let me understand what you are doing and why". In other words: the powerful person should adopt the role of the humble person, following the advice of that article. In this way you won't kill good ideas, you won't kill important whistle blows (of the "this would lead to a fuckup" type, as well as the "this is illegal" type), and frustrated good people won't silent quit or loud quit.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

inopinatus 4y ago

If you’re in a position of authority, and someone starts this level of obsequious bullshit, please put them at ease as soon as possible, then fix your culture. No-one should have to burn so much excess energy just to pipe up. I always liked the meeting style where folks voice their opinions in ascending order of seniority. Someone told me this comes from Japan. I can’t confirm the origin but it’s certainly a neat way of defusing automatic deference to a senior voice.

psd1 4y ago
That's a good idea!

Joel_Mckay 4y ago

Hofstede’s Power distance Index is different across cultures. In North America it is generally quite low, and most managers become acutely sensitive to manipulative/sycophantic antics unless completely blinded by narcissism. It also ties into management styles, and how staff treat each other. Generally, if people are jerks it is a defensive mechanism masking an insecurity about their role at a firm. Personally, I preferred the competent and bluntly honest over someone acting agreeable.. telling people what they think they need to hear. My advice, Manage or be Managed by amateurs. Eventually someone needs to take fiscal responsibility, and bring down the hammer on liabilities. This is why most CEOs I knew became rather prickly personalities after a few years if they liaised in managerial roles.

dschuetz 4y ago

Very often the person "more powerful than you" in question is a closeted, or unknowing, sociopath, or psychopath (I am using the terms by definition, no judgement) and your opinion still might be interpreted as an attack, regardless of reasoning. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/the-science-behind-why-so-many-successful-millionaires-are-psychopaths-and-why-it-doesnt-have-to-be-a-bad-thing.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/the-science-behind-why-so-ma... It is very difficult to work with such people. So, be extra careful when challenging anything that is on the agenda of a sociopath boss. You've been warned.

k__ 4y ago

The problem I saw wasn't that they were angry at my ideas. It was that they simply ignored them. I met so many C-level people who simply have the assumption they're always right. Either that or they they don't care at all.

philjohn 4y ago

An old manager gave me something I almost consider a superpower - a simple technique that works for this very well. Ask questions. That's it. Turns out, either you're wrong, and the answers to the questions will make you ralise this, or they're wrong, and them answering the questions will guide them to the mistake. Telling someone, even respectfully, that they're wrong can kick off defense mechanisms, no matter how experienced they are.

nathias 4y ago
this only works on complete morons, anyone else will know what is happening and probably be more annoyed that you think of him as a moron ...
- account-5 4y ago
  I don't agree, unless you're asking questions sarcastically or questions with obvious answers; if you're asking questions as a genuine means to try and understand what they are talking about, making no assumptions that they are wrong, only a moron would get annoyed at having to explain their thinking. A moron, or someone who knows they are wrong.
  - philjohn 4y ago
    This. Asking genuine questions is the key - as is starting from the assumption that, hey, I might be completely wrong here - I want to understand this.

HellDunkel 4y ago

All of this is true, yet none of the above will fix what is broken in our world. Solid advice for climbing the company ladder.

andrewstuart 4y ago

I once worked somewhere that the boss strongly encouraged feedback and ideas from his team members (me), and whenever I actually put forward an idea he didn't do it and found a way to explain that it didn't make sense. Of course I gave up contributing ideas very quickly.

psd1 4y ago

Something that works for me. I care about technical issues. Too much probably. I tend to be _that guy_. So my emotional investment comes out in my tone. My team lead then gets invested himself. At that point, the technical issue is just a firm, what's happening really is an emotional battle to dominate the frame. It's a zero-sum game. What I do now: make the pitch of my voice go down at the end of sentences, not up. This makes me sound detached; bored, even. Not only does this take away the emotional element, I find that the team lead mirrors me. His tone starts dropping, too. At that point we aren't butting heads; we're side by side, looking at the issue. I wonder how much of our interpersonal conflict has been me speaking in a high emotional key and dragging the discourse to a heightened emotional state.

logical_ferry 4y ago

I have zero interest in getting on my boss' bad side. I will definitely express my opinion and that is enough for me. If the higher up still pushes for doing things his way, so be it. I did my part.

Buttons840 4y ago

The book Crucial Conversations is quite good and deals with this. The author says to avoid the "Fool's Choice", which is "I can be honest or maintain a good relationship, but not both". The author's own one-sentence summary is "be 100% honest, and 100% respectful". Stated like that, I realized I could be honest in a smart way and not damage my relationships. Of course, sometimes we still end up not getting our way. I recommend this book. I've also realized I should avoid any extraordinary efforts to "cover my ass" against abusive leaders. If they're going to be abusive, I don't need an ironclad defense to rub their noses in, I just need to get out. And I need not feel ashamed of not having that ironclad defense nor of reacting poorly to their aggression; like anyone abused by those in a position of power, I'm not at fault and need not be ashamed. Decent people will accept "we talked about this last month and you said..." just as well as they'll accept a written paper trail. This isn't to say never document things, but don't do it as a crutch for bad leaders; don't obsess about it, you shouldn't have to use it as a coping mechanism.

jollybean 4y ago

I think the biggest issue not mentioned is to not do it in public. Public arguments can be perceived as a threat to power even if the disagreement is fully benign on both sides, it's hard to argue in the commons. Better to do it in private. More often than not, tow the company/managers line in public. It's really, really hard to manage and having dissent which could appear to be arbitrary (even if it's not) is hard. In other words, 'in the commons' it's populism, 'in private' it can be authentic, so take it to the office.

atlgator 4y ago

I disagree with the premise of someone being more powerful. What does power mean? You serve a role in an organization and have expertise. It’s your duty to provide that expertise to the firm and/or its clients, no matter their level. That’s what they PAY you for. Sure, you can be overruled by those above you that have different responsibilities or motivations, but you still have to provide your expertise for the position you’re in.

As_You_Wish 4y ago

This is a bizarre article to me. I always look at it as if it is my job to disagree and let anyone know about it who needs to know. In a polite and diplomaitic way, the same as any other conversation. Not voicing one's thoughts can have a dire effect on a business, a division, a group, and/or an individual. We are all there to voice our disagreements, it's why we are hired in the first place. I have never had a boss who didn't want my disagreement, my questions, my thoughts. Not once. I've had a lot of jobs. I guess it isn't impossible to have a boss like that, but I think it would be fairly rare. If it did happen to me, I'd figure it out, and then start applying for new jobs, if it was reasonable and possible. If not, then I'd just STFU and keep my head down. But, I guess this article is for people who don't feel comfortable with being assertive, but then, to me, that means someone is not assertive in everything, including asking for a raise. In this case, you should honestly go to a therapist who specializes in assertiveness training. Truly. It would be a fantastic investment. Both men and women should be assertive. Both men and women have problems with assertiveness. And I don't mean to sound sexist, but especially women have problems with this. I personally think that is maybe 60% why women get paid less than men, because men are on a whole more aggressive. Not all, but statistically. I don't have published statistics on this, but I do have a ton of anecdotal stories that indicate at least to me that's the case. I've known extremely assertive women and they make as much money and more than men, and I've known women who are not assertive and miss out on raises. Again, it is the same with men, but I think it's more with women that are like this, for a lot of reasons. One anecdotal story - I was hired the exact same day as a woman who was better than me at the job, I knew this factually from day 1. No doubt. The hiring guy, the owner, said that after 30 days, he would re-evaluate and if he like our performance, would increase salary. On day 30, I was in front of his desk, and he doubled my pay rate. From $60 to $120 per hour. Not bad. 6 months later, this same woman comes up to me and says, "Did you get a raise? How much?" So I said yes, I asked 30 days after he said to ask, didn't you???" She said no. So that means I was paid 100% more than a woman that was way more qualified than I. To me, that is her fault that she didn't get paid as much as me, a less qualified man. It would be another man's fault, too, if he didn't ask for the raise. She's a fucking grown-ass woman, am I supposed to do everything for her, double-check all her work and her everything? Is the boss? And, I'm sure as there are stars in the sky, if I did, she or some other woman would come at me with the whole "patronizing" and "mansplaining" stuff if I asked stuff like that..."Oh, you don't think women can do what men do? SEXISM." I KNOW there are some other women who would be there on day 30. But I think most women, and a lot, lot, lot of men just to be rewarded for their work without asking, that the bosses should just pay them more and see their contributions. This is what a child does, they expect mommy and daddy to give them things without asking. I think that "equal pay for equal work" is not entirely accurate. Sure, some is, maybe 5-10%. But I think the real saying should be "equal pay for equal assertiveness and aggressiveness." It is a fact everywhere I've been - Assertive people make more money. "Equal pay for equal work" is so passive and dependent, like an infant. Man up. Woman up. Open your mouth. I hope no one sees this as "mansplaining" or "sexist". I WANT women, and men, to get paid their full value by being politely and diplomatically assertive in all areas of life, not just work or income. I'm writing all of this, because maybe you all (women and men) are much younger than I am and you have never really thought of this in depth. Maybe you have thought about it a little but no one has ever been straight up with you. So go to a therapist for assertiveness training, if you have problems with being assertive. It's probably the best money and time you'll ever spend. Also, you can read articles about assertiveness training https://www.google.com/search?q=assertiveness+skills https://www.google.com/search?q=assertiveness+skills You can also watch videos https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=assertiveness+skills https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=assertiveness+s... And use a therapist. Do all these things, learn from multiple sources.

JohnFen 4y ago

Interesting. I disagree with "more powerful" people the same way I disagree with anyone else: I state my disagreement and the reasons why I disagree. It never occurred to me to treat those higher up the org chart any differently than anyone else.