3 ms·

I don't think I agree with #5 based on my experiences working in tech a few decades Dissent is rarely rewarded by leadership to the point I can't think of a si

I don't think I agree with #5 based on my experiences working in tech a few decades Dissent is rarely rewarded by leadership to the point I can't think of a single example of it happening

dsr_ 1y ago
If it is dissent with someone other than the leader, and it pays off...
- leakycap 1y ago
  I still can't think of situations where it paid off for the dissenter. Maybe I'm limited by the small number of experiences I've had at work related to someone being disagreeable, or maybe it is rare to be rewarded for dissent even when "you're right"
  - andirk 1y ago
    Couple jobs ago they set a list of action items for everyone to follow to help productivity or whatever. One was stand at standups. I followed all the items to a T, including standing when everyone went back to sitting. I led new initiatives. I got more work done than my equal engineers. When the axe came, it was me who was let go first. The lesson I refuse to learn: stay in line, don't stand out.
    - leakycap 1y ago
      > I followed all the items to a T, including standing when everyone went back to sitting [...] When the axe came, it was me who was let go first. It doesn't sound like you were rewarded for your dissent from the group behavior, like standing up in a meeting (which is weird if everyone else is seated). If you choose to act differently than "everyone" else (which can seem unusual, like you can't read the room), you're dissenting. You say something about being in line or out of line, but from your comment I don't know what you think you were doing. Why did you choose to dissent from the team by being obliviously obedient and following rules "to the T" rather than going along with the team?
      - andirk 1y ago
        We were literally told to stand, so I stood. Just because everyone else got tired of following the rules that the C Suite took time to make, does that mean I should also stop following the rules? And standing during a standup so they don't go on and on and on like they always did made perfect sense to me. So the more wrongs, the more right?
        leakycap 1y ago
        > We were literally told to stand, so I stood. But everyone else could tell that wasn't a rule that needed to be followed "to a T" as you describe > Just because everyone else got tired of following the rules that the C Suite took time to make, does that mean I should also stop following the rules? If someone asked me to do something dumb, wasn't there to talk about it, and everyone else present realized it was a dumb request that didn't need my rigourus obedience, yes. I would not follow a dumb rule that no one else was following. Standing when everyone else sits is dissent behavior among the group you are part of (you're not part of the C suite). > And standing during a standup so they don't go on and on and on like they always did made perfect sense to me. It sounds like this is the reason you chose to stand, even when everyone else around you indicated they were going to sit and be more comfortable and casual, you chose to be rigid and probably loomed over the meeting if everyone else was staring at your belt buckle. > So the more wrongs, the more right? No. I would suggest the takeaway here is that you may have been blind to how your actions were actually self-serving (you wanted short meetings, and standing made others feel rushed ... at least you hoped) and the reason you stuck to the rules when everyone else was relaxed was because you wanted to use the C suite rules to manipulate other people's behavior to shorten the meeting you didn't want to be part of. Again, you were the dissenter in this situation based on your own retelling.
ayntkilove 1y ago
Then based on the premise of the post you have interacted with managers in leadership roles.
- leakycap 1y ago
  My comment is pointing out that I don't agree with the premise. The article may have some truth but isn't necessarily an infallible truth.
  - jama211 1y ago
    You don’t agree with the premise that managers should act more like leaders? It’s not stating how people are, it’s stating how they _should_ be. Does that make sense?
  - cosmotic 1y ago
    There's a difference between people which aspire to lead and those that actually lead. Either can be placed in leadership positions.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - 2muchcoffeeman 1y ago
    The whole article is aspirational. IRL people suck.
  - godelski 1y ago
    It sounds like you're making mountains out of molehills. The author is clearly trying to be inspirational. Is it idealistic? Yes. But are these qualities you can emulate and strive to follow? So why are you trying to find excuses to dismiss them? Are you afraid to try? Are you afraid to stick your neck out for what you believe? Do you want to justify complacency? It's okay, not everyone needs to stick their neck out. But you enable the very thing you fear by telling others not to. Don't impede people who are trying to make the world a better place
0xfffafaCrash 1y ago
Might be a cultural thing I’ve both been rewarded for dissent from leadership throughout my career and had greater respect for and advocated more strongly for those willing to stick out their necks and disagree earnestly and productively when in leadership positions. Dissent isn’t the same thing as sabotage. There’s healthy conflict and open disagreement which helps illuminate risks and gaps and uncover opportunities in productive ways and then there’s just stirring the pot or trying to tear things down without bringing alternative proposals to the conversation — being unwilling to contribute in positive ways if you don’t always get your way. The latter kills the ability for the team to work well while the former is key to allowing colleagues bring insights and value to the team
Seattle3503 1y ago
There is an art to dissent, and this article doesn't touch on it. If dissent is just a wall of "no, we can't do this", it will not be met well. If dissent is framed as a takedown of a person or their work, it will not be met well. Dissent needs to be delivered in a diplomatic way that makes clear everyone is pulling in the same direction, and there is a better way to pull. Some folks (eg younger me) are not interested in learning this art, and just want to say things and have everyone immediately see their genius. When I think about the times folks have done that to me, I didn't take it well.

I don't think I agree with #5 based on my experiences working in tech a few decades Dissent is rarely rewarded by leadership to the point I can't think of a single example of it happening

dsr_ 1y ago

If it is dissent with someone other than the leader, and it pays off...

leakycap 1y ago
I still can't think of situations where it paid off for the dissenter. Maybe I'm limited by the small number of experiences I've had at work related to someone being disagreeable, or maybe it is rare to be rewarded for dissent even when "you're right"
- andirk 1y ago
  Couple jobs ago they set a list of action items for everyone to follow to help productivity or whatever. One was stand at standups. I followed all the items to a T, including standing when everyone went back to sitting. I led new initiatives. I got more work done than my equal engineers. When the axe came, it was me who was let go first. The lesson I refuse to learn: stay in line, don't stand out.
  - leakycap 1y ago
    > I followed all the items to a T, including standing when everyone went back to sitting [...] When the axe came, it was me who was let go first. It doesn't sound like you were rewarded for your dissent from the group behavior, like standing up in a meeting (which is weird if everyone else is seated). If you choose to act differently than "everyone" else (which can seem unusual, like you can't read the room), you're dissenting. You say something about being in line or out of line, but from your comment I don't know what you think you were doing. Why did you choose to dissent from the team by being obliviously obedient and following rules "to the T" rather than going along with the team?
    - andirk 1y ago
      We were literally told to stand, so I stood. Just because everyone else got tired of following the rules that the C Suite took time to make, does that mean I should also stop following the rules? And standing during a standup so they don't go on and on and on like they always did made perfect sense to me. So the more wrongs, the more right?
      - leakycap 1y ago
        > We were literally told to stand, so I stood. But everyone else could tell that wasn't a rule that needed to be followed "to a T" as you describe > Just because everyone else got tired of following the rules that the C Suite took time to make, does that mean I should also stop following the rules? If someone asked me to do something dumb, wasn't there to talk about it, and everyone else present realized it was a dumb request that didn't need my rigourus obedience, yes. I would not follow a dumb rule that no one else was following. Standing when everyone else sits is dissent behavior among the group you are part of (you're not part of the C suite). > And standing during a standup so they don't go on and on and on like they always did made perfect sense to me. It sounds like this is the reason you chose to stand, even when everyone else around you indicated they were going to sit and be more comfortable and casual, you chose to be rigid and probably loomed over the meeting if everyone else was staring at your belt buckle. > So the more wrongs, the more right? No. I would suggest the takeaway here is that you may have been blind to how your actions were actually self-serving (you wanted short meetings, and standing made others feel rushed ... at least you hoped) and the reason you stuck to the rules when everyone else was relaxed was because you wanted to use the C suite rules to manipulate other people's behavior to shorten the meeting you didn't want to be part of. Again, you were the dissenter in this situation based on your own retelling.

ayntkilove 1y ago

Then based on the premise of the post you have interacted with managers in leadership roles.

leakycap 1y ago
My comment is pointing out that I don't agree with the premise. The article may have some truth but isn't necessarily an infallible truth.
- jama211 1y ago
  You don’t agree with the premise that managers should act more like leaders? It’s not stating how people are, it’s stating how they _should_ be. Does that make sense?
- cosmotic 1y ago
  There's a difference between people which aspire to lead and those that actually lead. Either can be placed in leadership positions.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- 2muchcoffeeman 1y ago
  The whole article is aspirational. IRL people suck.
- godelski 1y ago
  It sounds like you're making mountains out of molehills. The author is clearly trying to be inspirational. Is it idealistic? Yes. But are these qualities you can emulate and strive to follow? So why are you trying to find excuses to dismiss them? Are you afraid to try? Are you afraid to stick your neck out for what you believe? Do you want to justify complacency? It's okay, not everyone needs to stick their neck out. But you enable the very thing you fear by telling others not to. Don't impede people who are trying to make the world a better place

0xfffafaCrash 1y ago

Might be a cultural thing I’ve both been rewarded for dissent from leadership throughout my career and had greater respect for and advocated more strongly for those willing to stick out their necks and disagree earnestly and productively when in leadership positions. Dissent isn’t the same thing as sabotage. There’s healthy conflict and open disagreement which helps illuminate risks and gaps and uncover opportunities in productive ways and then there’s just stirring the pot or trying to tear things down without bringing alternative proposals to the conversation — being unwilling to contribute in positive ways if you don’t always get your way. The latter kills the ability for the team to work well while the former is key to allowing colleagues bring insights and value to the team

Seattle3503 1y ago

There is an art to dissent, and this article doesn't touch on it. If dissent is just a wall of "no, we can't do this", it will not be met well. If dissent is framed as a takedown of a person or their work, it will not be met well. Dissent needs to be delivered in a diplomatic way that makes clear everyone is pulling in the same direction, and there is a better way to pull. Some folks (eg younger me) are not interested in learning this art, and just want to say things and have everyone immediately see their genius. When I think about the times folks have done that to me, I didn't take it well.