4 ms·
Well the magnitude of your response should be calibrated to the magnitude of the grievance. A new boss coming in and changing everything in a way nobody signed
by ajkjk 4y ago
Well the magnitude of your response should be calibrated to the magnitude of the grievance. A new boss coming in and changing everything in a way nobody signed up for or is on board with is very egregious, and I _will_ quit if they don't back down, so I'm going to tell them that. It's a statement of fact. If they don't stop, and I quit, and I didn't say that ahead of time, then I haven't communicated what I meant to.
- datavirtue 4y agoI find it much more satisfying to smile and nod and then leave unexpectedly without notice.
- ajkjk 4y agomm. I don't believe in doing that. You don't owe anything to the company as an abstract entity, but I believe you can be honest about your plans because it's respectful of the people around you, as people.
- tomtheelder 4y ago> Well the magnitude of your response should be calibrated to the magnitude of the grievance. This is where I disagree. The magnitude of response should be determined by the likelihood of achieving the desired outcome. Sometimes that requires drawing a really firm line, but usually it does not. And I'd argue that it virtually never involves drawing that line as your first strategy. Like I said, you should absolutely be willing to make that threat, and to walk away, but I don't think there's any benefit to yourself in leading with it. If your initial attempt fails, then try something more drastic until you either get your desired result or quit. I don't think you can expect people to be rational all, or even most of the time. Just because something is a fact does not mean it is necessary or beneficial to say it.