In some ways that's your job :) If I was managing you and the situations that you describe came up I'd probably be saying things like "That's why we have antocv

In some ways that's your job :) If I was managing you and the situations that you describe came up I'd probably be saying things like "That's why we have antocv - he's normally right, and what do we know anyway". Possibly I'd get "We should boot him and hire a monkey", and if that is the rational thing to do I'd be thinking, "you know what, I need to let antocv know that he is wasting his talents here" Also I would start looking for a new gig myself... But it's a different context and situation to the one above. If I came to you as a software engineer and said; "Antocv, our new customer is insisting that we add an extra step in our QA to get our contract signed off" I would expect you to either say "Sure, no problem" or "My friend, it sounds easy, but the thing is that doing it will sink us. Because..." if you said "No" and left it at that I'd conclude this is a guy who I can't work with. The thing is the reasonableness of the behaviour - if I come to you with a request that you can fulfil reasonably and you are paid to do it, you should do it, or find a way to let me know that I do not really want you to do it in the first place. The "because" is the critical thing; random acts of rebellion are not helpful. But be clear; nor are dickheads from HR/Accts/Sales appearing and announcing that they know how to do the jobs of skilled professionals by remote control. That's every bit as unacceptable as uncooperative techies, and if you are in an environment where that washes it's definitely for the short term only. It just means that money is being wasted and no one knows what to do. Either leave now, or put up with it until they go bust; there is no third way.