3 ms·

Point #2 is correct, but there’s no good reason it _has_ to be correct. Why can’t we tell management that a question they asked is non-sensical? The answer of c

Point #2 is correct, but there’s no good reason it _has_ to be correct. Why can’t we tell management that a question they asked is non-sensical? The answer of course is that you don’t buck the hierarchy. But this adherence to hierarchy doesn’t actually help the business. It seems like this is a value which needs to be more easily discarded.

spacephysics 3y ago
I think it’s important to make those requests as minimal as possible. If we have a well oiled system of Jira tickets, estimates, and expectations for each sprint, these one off requests fly under the radar and impede engineer performance and expectations You could have a percent of each sprint dedicated to one-offs, but then are they really one-offs in the colloquial sense? The smaller the team and org, the easier it is to handle the one-offs (imo), because we can more directly connect the request to tangible impact more often. At the very least, in a small co your manager (or C suite executive) would easily back you up as the engineer if other executives were questioning output or something etc etc In larger orgs the extra communication burden makes the one off requests more expensive
jroseattle 3y ago
> Why can’t we tell management that a question they asked is non-sensical? You should absolutely do that (I tell my team to inform me if what I'm asking doesn't make sense.) If I'm coming to someone with a request, it's because I think they're the right person to address it. Just tell me if I'm off-base. FWIW, I encourage everyone to not care about the hierarchy, so that may not work in every place.
- everdrive 3y ago
  This is a great point -- and I do, when I can. I guess it's the culture shock that I find most difficult. I'm only asking for clarification so I can fulfill the request more effectively -- but even this is seen as risky and pushy in many businesses.
r_hoods_ghost 3y ago
I do this all the time and have done with every boss I've had over the past 25 years. None have ever objected. The phrase I use with my current CEO is "I'm not sure what you're asking for, can you clarify?" With my line manager this is shortened to "huh?" But then again I don't work for Americans who seem to be much more into hierarchy in the workplace and not asking questions.
- kirubakaran 3y ago
  > I don't work for Americans who seem to be much more into hierarchy in the workplace and not asking questions. In my experience, this is not true at all. But, as you say you don't have direct experience to come to this conclusion, may I ask what makes you think this?
  - krab 3y ago
    Not OP but I have that experience. Europeans have been much more open. My personal theory is that it's connected to job security and how big personal problem it is to lose your job in a layoff. If you get laid off in Europe, your health insurance is paid from public budget now and you get several months salary from your employer. If you worked for a big name, it may be six months or more. If it was a small startup, you get at least two months. Our US colleagues always made more money but also were more afraid of losing their jobs. All of that said from the IT perspective. I'm sure being a coal miner and getting laid off is much worse.
- 121789 3y ago
  Americans being into hierarchy is a bizarre opinion. Are you confusing it with asian countries?
  - krab 3y ago
    Same experience here. See my reply to the sibling comment.
  - pnathan 3y ago
    A lot of Americans, particularly the more traditional minded, really are into hierarchy.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
The OP responded so seems to understand the link between what you've written and their point #2, but I don't see how it addresses point #2. Point #2 to me seems to be about prioritization of work tasks, and the need for a manager to appropriately prioritize anything they ask for within the context of everything else the worker is doing.
jjk166 3y ago
The whole point of a hierarchy is division of labor - managers are supposed to be looking at the big picture and monitoring resources so that they can direct their subordinates more efficiently than the subordinates could self organize. Of course there needs to be two way communication, the people down in the trenches are inevitably going to have a much better grasp on the details than the general 100 miles away. But assuming you have told management all the information they need from you, setting priorities correctly is managements entire reason for existence. It is not and should not be the responsibility of every employee to monitor all information and identify whether an ask should or should not be given its current level of priority. You should be confident that when your boss tells you to do something that it is for good reason even if you don't quite see what that reason is. If, on the other hand, you have to do your boss' job for them, then it's better for both the company and you to just cut out the middle man.

spacephysics 3y ago

I think it’s important to make those requests as minimal as possible. If we have a well oiled system of Jira tickets, estimates, and expectations for each sprint, these one off requests fly under the radar and impede engineer performance and expectations You could have a percent of each sprint dedicated to one-offs, but then are they really one-offs in the colloquial sense? The smaller the team and org, the easier it is to handle the one-offs (imo), because we can more directly connect the request to tangible impact more often. At the very least, in a small co your manager (or C suite executive) would easily back you up as the engineer if other executives were questioning output or something etc etc In larger orgs the extra communication burden makes the one off requests more expensive

jroseattle 3y ago

> Why can’t we tell management that a question they asked is non-sensical? You should absolutely do that (I tell my team to inform me if what I'm asking doesn't make sense.) If I'm coming to someone with a request, it's because I think they're the right person to address it. Just tell me if I'm off-base. FWIW, I encourage everyone to not care about the hierarchy, so that may not work in every place.

everdrive 3y ago
This is a great point -- and I do, when I can. I guess it's the culture shock that I find most difficult. I'm only asking for clarification so I can fulfill the request more effectively -- but even this is seen as risky and pushy in many businesses.

r_hoods_ghost 3y ago

I do this all the time and have done with every boss I've had over the past 25 years. None have ever objected. The phrase I use with my current CEO is "I'm not sure what you're asking for, can you clarify?" With my line manager this is shortened to "huh?" But then again I don't work for Americans who seem to be much more into hierarchy in the workplace and not asking questions.

kirubakaran 3y ago
> I don't work for Americans who seem to be much more into hierarchy in the workplace and not asking questions. In my experience, this is not true at all. But, as you say you don't have direct experience to come to this conclusion, may I ask what makes you think this?
- krab 3y ago
  Not OP but I have that experience. Europeans have been much more open. My personal theory is that it's connected to job security and how big personal problem it is to lose your job in a layoff. If you get laid off in Europe, your health insurance is paid from public budget now and you get several months salary from your employer. If you worked for a big name, it may be six months or more. If it was a small startup, you get at least two months. Our US colleagues always made more money but also were more afraid of losing their jobs. All of that said from the IT perspective. I'm sure being a coal miner and getting laid off is much worse.
121789 3y ago
Americans being into hierarchy is a bizarre opinion. Are you confusing it with asian countries?
- krab 3y ago
  Same experience here. See my reply to the sibling comment.
- pnathan 3y ago
  A lot of Americans, particularly the more traditional minded, really are into hierarchy.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

The OP responded so seems to understand the link between what you've written and their point #2, but I don't see how it addresses point #2. Point #2 to me seems to be about prioritization of work tasks, and the need for a manager to appropriately prioritize anything they ask for within the context of everything else the worker is doing.

jjk166 3y ago

The whole point of a hierarchy is division of labor - managers are supposed to be looking at the big picture and monitoring resources so that they can direct their subordinates more efficiently than the subordinates could self organize. Of course there needs to be two way communication, the people down in the trenches are inevitably going to have a much better grasp on the details than the general 100 miles away. But assuming you have told management all the information they need from you, setting priorities correctly is managements entire reason for existence. It is not and should not be the responsibility of every employee to monitor all information and identify whether an ask should or should not be given its current level of priority. You should be confident that when your boss tells you to do something that it is for good reason even if you don't quite see what that reason is. If, on the other hand, you have to do your boss' job for them, then it's better for both the company and you to just cut out the middle man.