3 ms·

Letting a thing implode that you could prevent is a missed opportunity for advancement and a risk to your career because you will be on a failing team. The sma

Letting a thing implode that you could prevent is a missed opportunity for advancement and a risk to your career because you will be on a failing team. The smarter move is to figure out how to fix it for the company while getting visibility for it.

namaria 2y ago
You are right. I don't think the only alternative to shielding management from the consequences of their bad choices is letting things implode and going down with the ship.
bluefirebrand 2y ago
> Letting a thing implode that you could prevent is a missed opportunity for advancement No matter how many times I bail out my managers it seems that my career has never really benefit from it I've only ever received significant bumps to salary or job title by changing jobs
- kortilla 2y ago
  That means you’re not getting visibility for it. When I say “get visibility”, it means to your manager’s boss and peers.
spookie 2y ago
yup, an employee is more than just a gear, better keep the motor running than explode along with the other parts.
stavros 2y ago
I don't know what your experience is, but mine is the opposite. Nobody ever notices people who put out fires, and it's hard to should "hey guys! There's a fire here that John started, I'm putting it out!" without looking like a jerk for outing John.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Fewer still notice the fire-preventer.
  - stavros 2y ago
    Oh, no, neither prevent the fires not put them out. Instead, predict them, and then say "see?" when they break out.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      That's a risky business, you can get the blame if you're not careful. "Why didn't you try harder if you knew this would happen" etc.
      - stavros 2y ago
        If you say "look, the stuff they're doing there is risky, you should <do thing>", and they don't do it, how can they blame you? If they do do it, then mission accomplished, no? E.g. "the way that team builds software isn't robust enough, you should replace the leader or we'll have an incident", how can you be blamed for the incident when it happens?
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

namaria 2y ago

You are right. I don't think the only alternative to shielding management from the consequences of their bad choices is letting things implode and going down with the ship.

bluefirebrand 2y ago

> Letting a thing implode that you could prevent is a missed opportunity for advancement No matter how many times I bail out my managers it seems that my career has never really benefit from it I've only ever received significant bumps to salary or job title by changing jobs

kortilla 2y ago
That means you’re not getting visibility for it. When I say “get visibility”, it means to your manager’s boss and peers.

spookie 2y ago

yup, an employee is more than just a gear, better keep the motor running than explode along with the other parts.

stavros 2y ago

I don't know what your experience is, but mine is the opposite. Nobody ever notices people who put out fires, and it's hard to should "hey guys! There's a fire here that John started, I'm putting it out!" without looking like a jerk for outing John.

HPsquared 2y ago
Fewer still notice the fire-preventer.
- stavros 2y ago
  Oh, no, neither prevent the fires not put them out. Instead, predict them, and then say "see?" when they break out.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    That's a risky business, you can get the blame if you're not careful. "Why didn't you try harder if you knew this would happen" etc.
    - stavros 2y ago
      If you say "look, the stuff they're doing there is risky, you should <do thing>", and they don't do it, how can they blame you? If they do do it, then mission accomplished, no? E.g. "the way that team builds software isn't robust enough, you should replace the leader or we'll have an incident", how can you be blamed for the incident when it happens?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]