7 ms·

The options you have: A) disagree and commit B) disagree and wait to be fired C) appear to commit, but secretly subvert your (elected) boss's plans/intention

The options you have: A) disagree and commit B) disagree and wait to be fired C) appear to commit, but secretly subvert your (elected) boss's plans/intentions I use the word 'boss' here because the president has the right to hire and fire for this role: SEC. 5. 42 U.S.C. 1864 (a) The Director of the Foundation (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘Director’’) shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Before any person is appointed as Director, the President shall afford the Board an opportunity to make recommendations to him with respect to such appointment. The Director shall receive basic pay at the rate provided for level II of the Executive Schedule under section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, and shall serve for a term of six years unless sooner removed by the President.

etskinner 2y ago
Secret other option: Disagree and convince your boss to change their mind That, of course, probably doesn't apply in this situation since Trump rarely changes his mind. But it does apply in other situations.
- deeThrow94 2y ago
  > since Trump rarely changes his mind That's not true; he changes his mind all the time, particularly as media coverage changes. It's just not necessarily something you can persuade him to do without catering to his ego.
  - inerte 2y ago
    https://www.axios.com/2025/04/19/inside-trump-mindset-tariffs https://www.axios.com/2025/04/19/inside-trump-mindset-tariff... "We saw it in business with Trump," one adviser said. "He would have these meetings and everyone would agree, and then we would just pray that when he left the office and got on the elevator that the doorman wouldn't share his opinion, because there would be a 50/50 chance [Trump] would suddenly side with the doorman."
    - dylan604 2y ago
      Trump is known to be that type where if you want him to go with your suggestion, you must be the last person in the room.
      - Freedom2 2y ago
        Perhaps that's why Elon was following him so closely everywhere at the tail end of his campaign and at the start of his presidency.
        deeThrow94 2y ago
        [flagged]
- FuriouslyAdrift 2y ago
  There's also malicious compliance... doing EXACTLY what is asked no matter how damaging or stupid. It's the 'let it all burn down' option but I have found it drives change very quickly... CYA, though.
  - IcyWindows 2y ago
    Isn't this what is happening now? Given that the management is choosing who is let go, I believe many are threatening to let crucial people and programs end if funding is cut. It's extremely effective.
- sillyfluke 2y ago
  I don't know, I can feel everyone who has tried and failed to prevent calamity from inside an organization cringe recalling that they had nothing to show for it except lost years and burn out. As for GP's options, normally I would think B (standing your ground and throwing them a small bone while waiting to get fired) is the most rational option outside of sheer self-preservation. Since its a federal job if you don't know the law it may get little dicey if you go the C route. My guess from out of leftfield: there is immense pressure and unseen threats being thrown about by admin goons similar to what they did in the attorney general's office in the Southern District of New York, namely: If you don't resign we will fire everyone underneath you. That's what would easily explain this behavior.
ricksunny 2y ago
Fun fact: Exactly the stipulation behind this excerpt, whether the President can hire/fire the head of the NSF, is exactly why Truman had vetoed an earlier version of the NSF bill written under the close influence of Vannevar Bush that actively avoided providing for this extent of executive ‘weighing of the scales’ of science. Source: Bush, V. “Pieces of the Action”, 1970
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  I’m so glad you know this, as I was going to comment on this topic of history. Bush was a wise man, Truman forgot that government power can be fickle.
  - ricksunny 2y ago
    For The Tech minded, I wrote an guest column that touched on the autonomy of technical management aspect. https://thetech.com/2024/07/11/anniversary-vannevar-bush-passing https://thetech.com/2024/07/11/anniversary-vannevar-bush-pas... the “unchecked committee of technocratic experts appeared to be his preferred agency governance form.” refers both to his utterances illustrated in his only biography to date, and particularly to the would-be May-Johnson governance structure he promoted. Today we see the debate in full swing with discussion of technocratic elitism, (particularly this year more than last when I wrote the piece). I wrestle with the pitfalls & perceived benefits a technocratic elite sans much representative democratic oversight. But make no mistake, a ‘Vannevarian’ world would appear very different to the current one we prefer to think we live in. The closest example in pop culture to what I imagine is the Fallout franchise’s Vault governance & managed society.
    - mensetmanusman 2y ago
      This is great. I worked in building 13 and speak about V. Bush when I give talks to course 3 phd students occasionally :) William B. Bonvillian taught me the bit I know about the topic :)
      - 2y ago
lesuorac 2y ago
Is it disagree and commit? NSF is an "independent agency" [1] so if the job you were appointed to an confirmed by congress (senate) is at odds with the presidents desires I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be a problem for the president not you. Similar to all those inspector generals who just gave up when they were illegally fired. Literally your job is to prevent the president from corruption, how are you going to do that now? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_federal_government#Examples_of_independent_agencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  Seems unconstitutional for congress to be able to create a regulatory agency fully outside of the executive's control, as who will check the congress's power? Appointment and confirmation exists so both branches must assent to all officers of then government
  - lelandfe 2y ago
    > who will check the congress's power The judiciary. E.g Bowsher v. Synar
    - sanderjd 2y ago
      Yeah this is a silly argument. The check on the actions of independent agencies is the same as the check on the actions of all agencies. The executive obviously isn't a check on the actions of executive agencies...
  - wavefunction 2y ago
    The Judicial Branch is supposed to provide oversight over the Executive and Legislative Branch.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - vharuck 2y ago

etskinner 2y ago

Secret other option: Disagree and convince your boss to change their mind That, of course, probably doesn't apply in this situation since Trump rarely changes his mind. But it does apply in other situations.

deeThrow94 2y ago
> since Trump rarely changes his mind That's not true; he changes his mind all the time, particularly as media coverage changes. It's just not necessarily something you can persuade him to do without catering to his ego.
- inerte 2y ago
  https://www.axios.com/2025/04/19/inside-trump-mindset-tariffs https://www.axios.com/2025/04/19/inside-trump-mindset-tariff... "We saw it in business with Trump," one adviser said. "He would have these meetings and everyone would agree, and then we would just pray that when he left the office and got on the elevator that the doorman wouldn't share his opinion, because there would be a 50/50 chance [Trump] would suddenly side with the doorman."
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Trump is known to be that type where if you want him to go with your suggestion, you must be the last person in the room.
    - Freedom2 2y ago
      Perhaps that's why Elon was following him so closely everywhere at the tail end of his campaign and at the start of his presidency.
      - deeThrow94 2y ago
        [flagged]
FuriouslyAdrift 2y ago
There's also malicious compliance... doing EXACTLY what is asked no matter how damaging or stupid. It's the 'let it all burn down' option but I have found it drives change very quickly... CYA, though.
- IcyWindows 2y ago
  Isn't this what is happening now? Given that the management is choosing who is let go, I believe many are threatening to let crucial people and programs end if funding is cut. It's extremely effective.
sillyfluke 2y ago
I don't know, I can feel everyone who has tried and failed to prevent calamity from inside an organization cringe recalling that they had nothing to show for it except lost years and burn out. As for GP's options, normally I would think B (standing your ground and throwing them a small bone while waiting to get fired) is the most rational option outside of sheer self-preservation. Since its a federal job if you don't know the law it may get little dicey if you go the C route. My guess from out of leftfield: there is immense pressure and unseen threats being thrown about by admin goons similar to what they did in the attorney general's office in the Southern District of New York, namely: If you don't resign we will fire everyone underneath you. That's what would easily explain this behavior.

ricksunny 2y ago

Fun fact: Exactly the stipulation behind this excerpt, whether the President can hire/fire the head of the NSF, is exactly why Truman had vetoed an earlier version of the NSF bill written under the close influence of Vannevar Bush that actively avoided providing for this extent of executive ‘weighing of the scales’ of science. Source: Bush, V. “Pieces of the Action”, 1970

mensetmanusman 2y ago
I’m so glad you know this, as I was going to comment on this topic of history. Bush was a wise man, Truman forgot that government power can be fickle.
- ricksunny 2y ago
  For The Tech minded, I wrote an guest column that touched on the autonomy of technical management aspect. https://thetech.com/2024/07/11/anniversary-vannevar-bush-passing https://thetech.com/2024/07/11/anniversary-vannevar-bush-pas... the “unchecked committee of technocratic experts appeared to be his preferred agency governance form.” refers both to his utterances illustrated in his only biography to date, and particularly to the would-be May-Johnson governance structure he promoted. Today we see the debate in full swing with discussion of technocratic elitism, (particularly this year more than last when I wrote the piece). I wrestle with the pitfalls & perceived benefits a technocratic elite sans much representative democratic oversight. But make no mistake, a ‘Vannevarian’ world would appear very different to the current one we prefer to think we live in. The closest example in pop culture to what I imagine is the Fallout franchise’s Vault governance & managed society.
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    This is great. I worked in building 13 and speak about V. Bush when I give talks to course 3 phd students occasionally :) William B. Bonvillian taught me the bit I know about the topic :)
    - 2y ago

lesuorac 2y ago

Is it disagree and commit? NSF is an "independent agency" [1] so if the job you were appointed to an confirmed by congress (senate) is at odds with the presidents desires I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be a problem for the president not you. Similar to all those inspector generals who just gave up when they were illegally fired. Literally your job is to prevent the president from corruption, how are you going to do that now? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_federal_government#Examples_of_independent_agencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...

throwawaymaths 2y ago
Seems unconstitutional for congress to be able to create a regulatory agency fully outside of the executive's control, as who will check the congress's power? Appointment and confirmation exists so both branches must assent to all officers of then government
- lelandfe 2y ago
  > who will check the congress's power The judiciary. E.g Bowsher v. Synar
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    Yeah this is a silly argument. The check on the actions of independent agencies is the same as the check on the actions of all agencies. The executive obviously isn't a check on the actions of executive agencies...
- wavefunction 2y ago
  The Judicial Branch is supposed to provide oversight over the Executive and Legislative Branch.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- vharuck 2y ago