4 ms·

One of my worst job experiences was when I depended on a colleague who wouldn't deliver. Any feedback or conversations with that colleague mostly resulted in ta

by jf22 10mo ago

One of my worst job experiences was when I depended on a colleague who wouldn't deliver. Any feedback or conversations with that colleague mostly resulted in tantrums and empty promises. The lack of delivery severely harmed the services I provided to the company and to external users, ruined team morale, and was a huge source of stress. My boss always turned the problem back on me, despite him also being my colleague's boss. I tried everything I could for 18 months and had extensive documentation of all my attempts, sometimes working in parallel with my boss or using his recommendations. Still, the problems persisted and every time I brought it up with my boss it was as if he was oblivious to the ongoing saga. I want to HR and over his head about it and he always fed me shit about "empowerment" and "growth." Yeah, I was empowered to interview with other company's and grew into other new roles.

parliament32 10mo ago
There's a good chance he was an executive's nephew or some other protected class.
cj 10mo ago
You're describing one end of an extreme. The opposite extreme is you have someone on your team who is only able to resolve conflicts by having their boss intervene. E.g. you leave some critical feedback in a PR review. The author of the PR doesn't like your comments, so they tell your mutual boss, then your boss comes to you to ask why you left the comments in the PR, instead of the author coming to you directly. Obviously there are cases where it's appropriate for you and a coworker to address a problem directly with each other. And there are cases where it makes more sense for your boss to intervene. The problem is the culture at some jobs gravitate towards either end of the extreme. The ideal is somewhere in the middle. A good manager will find that balance.
- jjk166 10mo ago
  > The opposite extreme is you have someone on your team who is only able to resolve conflicts by having their boss intervene. What's wrong with that? Resolving conflicts is the boss' job. So long as the team mate is doing their actual job appropriately, that's all that matters. > E.g. you leave some critical feedback in a PR review. The author of the PR doesn't like your comments, so they tell your mutual boss, then your boss comes to you to ask why you left the comments in the PR, instead of the author coming to you directly. The author should not be coming to you directly, going through the boss is the appropriate route. If the author's complaints were unreasonable, it should be the boss telling them that, not you. If your boss is coming to you, it means they feel the author's complaints are at least partially valid, and you should be hearing that from your boss, not the author. It's not necessarily a bad thing if people bypass the manager to settle things directly, so long as both parties are comfortable with that, but it's not a happy medium.
  - chowells 10mo ago
    Handling negative feedback on a PR is a necessary skill for a developer. A manager should only get involved if it becomes hostile. Negative is very far from hostile.
    - jjk166 10mo ago
      Handling negative feedback doesn't involve going to anybody - neither the manager, nor the person who gave the PR. Someone giving negative feedback is not supposed to be a conflict in need of resolution. We are talking about a situation where there is a conflict that needs to be resolved, ie that it has already become hostile. If they are going to their manager, and then the manager, rather than convincing them that they are over-reacting, is instead going to you and telling you that there's something wrong with the feedback you gave, you should handle that negative feedback.
      - cj 10mo ago
        > We are talking about a situation where there is a conflict that needs to be resolved You’re overlooking the fact that your threshold for what a “conflict” is might be different from the next person’s. There’s no universally “correct” way to label whether something is a conflict or not. People have varying perceptions.
        jjk166 10mo ago
        It doesn't matter what I consider a conflict. The fact is someone went to their boss with a conflict because it rose above their threshold of what a conflict is. If one of the parties involved feels there is a conflict in need of mediation, then there is a conflict in need of mediation. Very likely the issue is that the second party didn't realize what they said would cause conflict, which is exactly why the boss should be talking to them. No one is saying that the boss should be looking for and trying to mediate "conflicts" no one wants them to resolve.
        10mo ago

by jf22 10mo ago

parliament32 10mo ago

There's a good chance he was an executive's nephew or some other protected class.

cj 10mo ago

You're describing one end of an extreme. The opposite extreme is you have someone on your team who is only able to resolve conflicts by having their boss intervene. E.g. you leave some critical feedback in a PR review. The author of the PR doesn't like your comments, so they tell your mutual boss, then your boss comes to you to ask why you left the comments in the PR, instead of the author coming to you directly. Obviously there are cases where it's appropriate for you and a coworker to address a problem directly with each other. And there are cases where it makes more sense for your boss to intervene. The problem is the culture at some jobs gravitate towards either end of the extreme. The ideal is somewhere in the middle. A good manager will find that balance.

jjk166 10mo ago
> The opposite extreme is you have someone on your team who is only able to resolve conflicts by having their boss intervene. What's wrong with that? Resolving conflicts is the boss' job. So long as the team mate is doing their actual job appropriately, that's all that matters. > E.g. you leave some critical feedback in a PR review. The author of the PR doesn't like your comments, so they tell your mutual boss, then your boss comes to you to ask why you left the comments in the PR, instead of the author coming to you directly. The author should not be coming to you directly, going through the boss is the appropriate route. If the author's complaints were unreasonable, it should be the boss telling them that, not you. If your boss is coming to you, it means they feel the author's complaints are at least partially valid, and you should be hearing that from your boss, not the author. It's not necessarily a bad thing if people bypass the manager to settle things directly, so long as both parties are comfortable with that, but it's not a happy medium.
- chowells 10mo ago
  Handling negative feedback on a PR is a necessary skill for a developer. A manager should only get involved if it becomes hostile. Negative is very far from hostile.
  - jjk166 10mo ago
    Handling negative feedback doesn't involve going to anybody - neither the manager, nor the person who gave the PR. Someone giving negative feedback is not supposed to be a conflict in need of resolution. We are talking about a situation where there is a conflict that needs to be resolved, ie that it has already become hostile. If they are going to their manager, and then the manager, rather than convincing them that they are over-reacting, is instead going to you and telling you that there's something wrong with the feedback you gave, you should handle that negative feedback.
    - cj 10mo ago
      > We are talking about a situation where there is a conflict that needs to be resolved You’re overlooking the fact that your threshold for what a “conflict” is might be different from the next person’s. There’s no universally “correct” way to label whether something is a conflict or not. People have varying perceptions.
      - jjk166 10mo ago
        It doesn't matter what I consider a conflict. The fact is someone went to their boss with a conflict because it rose above their threshold of what a conflict is. If one of the parties involved feels there is a conflict in need of mediation, then there is a conflict in need of mediation. Very likely the issue is that the second party didn't realize what they said would cause conflict, which is exactly why the boss should be talking to them. No one is saying that the boss should be looking for and trying to mediate "conflicts" no one wants them to resolve.
        10mo ago