4 ms·

I didn't personally find it very mature. It's just somebody parroting "How To Win Friends" with an authoritative spin. I found it manipulative and warped. This

by lhnz 13y ago

I didn't personally find it very mature. It's just somebody parroting "How To Win Friends" with an authoritative spin. I found it manipulative and warped. This guy isn't happy with being told what to do. A conversation is very unlikely to sort this out. I don't think leaving is about "punishing the manager." This job will be more appropriate for somebody else, and this company will probably be better off with somebody happy working in the new environment. It's not about mediocrity - it's about people sharing similar values and being happy with their working situation. That's very important and when people believe completely different things and don't have mutual respect for each other, it's very hard to find some kind of meaningful compromise. Edit: I say what I've said not because I'm an armchair cowboy (thanks), but because I've tried the other approach before. It's better to find people elsewhere that share your philosophy, than to try to convert people. (Converting people feels egotistical to me. We all love our own opinions but who is to say that they are best for our neighbours? I certainly don't want to be the one arguing this - it is such a grey line and so easy to accidentally antagonise somebody.)

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mikeash 13y ago
The top-voted answer is a great example of how much wording matters. It sounds very mature and reasonable, compared to the off-the-cuff and coarse answers given in the comments here. But when you actually look at what it says, it's basically "roll over". The best outcome envisioned in that response is, "If he compromises and lets you have a bit of flexibility". First, take a moment to appreciate that *lets you have" remark. As if we are grade schoolers and the manager is a teacher who gets to decide when we go to the bathroom. Then notice how the best outcome imaginable is a compromise. A scenario where you simply get what you want is not even on the table, here, even though it's entirely possible that getting what you want in this case is the best outcome for everyone involved, and at the very least is probably achievable and reasonable. Really, this is something that you can't properly advise on without knowing the personalities and the context. If management is full of dickheads, then this is your signal to search for the exits. Start looking for a new job, and jump ship when you can. Things will only get worse. On the other hand, if management is generally reasonable and this is an isolated problem, a reasonable discussion with this manager to find out what's going on is the thing to do. But this should be a discussion between equals, not the groveling and tiptoeing suggested.
- benihana 13y ago
  >But when you actually look at what it says, it's basically "roll over" I don't think we read the same comment. It most certainly doesn't say roll over. It says try to find a diplomatic solution before you fire shots. An ultimatum isn't going to change anyone's mind, and will only make things difficult. Try to come to an understanding so OP can keep his job and be happy, and the new manager can keep his developers and be happy. It also says that if there's no other way out but to leave, it costs OP nothing to be cordial and professional as he's exiting the company.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    A diplomatic situation implies a meeting of equals. That comment suggests a meeting wherein you very very very gently raise the possibility that perhaps there can be a small change to what's been mandated. Cordial and professional doesn't mean being a doormat, and talking to management as an adult with autonomy over one's own life does not require an ultimatum.
- walshemj 13y ago
  Hhat one of the problems with workplace I have seen 2000 odd words of wafflely answer that does not address the question asked - get voted up. A lot of the users also will jump in with completely pointless anecdotes about employment law as it applies in some country but the question is obviously about a different one (hint at will has no meaning outside of the UK).
moocowduckquack 13y ago
This job will be more appropriate for somebody else, and this company will probably be better off with somebody happy working in the new environment. If several senior developers leave because their attitude is not a good fit for new management, then the company may have to hire and then train new staff on loads of bespoke stuff without the people who wrote it being there. Who cares about getting people who fit the company culture if doing so kills your product?
- fleitz 13y ago
  It appears you've learned the lesson, having developers that write working software results in a more profitable company than having developers who remain in their seats for 8 hours a day. The key is to make the company culture fit those who write working software.
  - codygman 13y ago
    I would agree unless said culture is toxic or negative (such as racist, sexist, or any combination thereof).
DavidWoof 13y ago
Once you get past the Dale Carnegie stuff though, the top response is actually dead on the mark. Your compensation has effectively changed (free time is a form of compensation), so it's time to negotiate this change in compensation. Don't threaten to quit and don't assume you can "educate" the new manager on how the industry works. You can't. Try to come to an agreement on personal compensation. If you succeed, great. If you fail, smile, say "thank you" and start looking for another position. Not only do I think that's excellent advice, I don't think it differs in any material way from what you're saying.

by lhnz 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mikeash 13y ago

The top-voted answer is a great example of how much wording matters. It sounds very mature and reasonable, compared to the off-the-cuff and coarse answers given in the comments here. But when you actually look at what it says, it's basically "roll over". The best outcome envisioned in that response is, "If he compromises and lets you have a bit of flexibility". First, take a moment to appreciate that *lets you have" remark. As if we are grade schoolers and the manager is a teacher who gets to decide when we go to the bathroom. Then notice how the best outcome imaginable is a compromise. A scenario where you simply get what you want is not even on the table, here, even though it's entirely possible that getting what you want in this case is the best outcome for everyone involved, and at the very least is probably achievable and reasonable. Really, this is something that you can't properly advise on without knowing the personalities and the context. If management is full of dickheads, then this is your signal to search for the exits. Start looking for a new job, and jump ship when you can. Things will only get worse. On the other hand, if management is generally reasonable and this is an isolated problem, a reasonable discussion with this manager to find out what's going on is the thing to do. But this should be a discussion between equals, not the groveling and tiptoeing suggested.

benihana 13y ago
>But when you actually look at what it says, it's basically "roll over" I don't think we read the same comment. It most certainly doesn't say roll over. It says try to find a diplomatic solution before you fire shots. An ultimatum isn't going to change anyone's mind, and will only make things difficult. Try to come to an understanding so OP can keep his job and be happy, and the new manager can keep his developers and be happy. It also says that if there's no other way out but to leave, it costs OP nothing to be cordial and professional as he's exiting the company.
- mikeash 13y ago
  A diplomatic situation implies a meeting of equals. That comment suggests a meeting wherein you very very very gently raise the possibility that perhaps there can be a small change to what's been mandated. Cordial and professional doesn't mean being a doormat, and talking to management as an adult with autonomy over one's own life does not require an ultimatum.
walshemj 13y ago
Hhat one of the problems with workplace I have seen 2000 odd words of wafflely answer that does not address the question asked - get voted up. A lot of the users also will jump in with completely pointless anecdotes about employment law as it applies in some country but the question is obviously about a different one (hint at will has no meaning outside of the UK).

moocowduckquack 13y ago

This job will be more appropriate for somebody else, and this company will probably be better off with somebody happy working in the new environment. If several senior developers leave because their attitude is not a good fit for new management, then the company may have to hire and then train new staff on loads of bespoke stuff without the people who wrote it being there. Who cares about getting people who fit the company culture if doing so kills your product?

fleitz 13y ago
It appears you've learned the lesson, having developers that write working software results in a more profitable company than having developers who remain in their seats for 8 hours a day. The key is to make the company culture fit those who write working software.
- codygman 13y ago
  I would agree unless said culture is toxic or negative (such as racist, sexist, or any combination thereof).

DavidWoof 13y ago

Once you get past the Dale Carnegie stuff though, the top response is actually dead on the mark. Your compensation has effectively changed (free time is a form of compensation), so it's time to negotiate this change in compensation. Don't threaten to quit and don't assume you can "educate" the new manager on how the industry works. You can't. Try to come to an agreement on personal compensation. If you succeed, great. If you fail, smile, say "thank you" and start looking for another position. Not only do I think that's excellent advice, I don't think it differs in any material way from what you're saying.