3 ms·

If you work with a group of people you can't separate "reordering priorities" from the ethical issue of breaking a commitment. You keep on implying that as a s

by wdewind 13y ago

If you work with a group of people you can't separate "reordering priorities" from the ethical issue of breaking a commitment. You keep on implying that as a software developer you know better than the people asking you to do work. That even though you are not doing what was asked, you are doing something more important. That may be true, but I'm having a really hard time seeing the difference between the two types of people you are portraying (both seem very self-serving, regardless of motive), and neither of them seem like people I want to work with or have running large organizations.

sheepmullet 13y ago
If you have a condition that causes you to spend a few weeks each year working on non-management-approved activities then it is a minor problem and we should be compassionate about it. If somebody had to spend a few extra weeks off work each year to get chemotherapy you'd be a complete bastard to say they were unethical and broke a commitment. That doesn't change just because it is a mental health issue instead of a physical one. If you can accommodate it then you have the ethical obligation to do so.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  If you have a condition that causes you to spend a few weeks each year working on non-management-approved activities then it is a minor problem Disagree that it's a problem. Micromanagement is the problem. Side effects of high creativity (whether a person is or is not suffering from a mood disorder) aren't problems. If we desire progress for this world, then society should adapt to its best people, not the reverse. More to the point: if you don't trust people to work on what they consider important, then don't hire them. The idea that every iota of work has to be approved by some silly priesthood is counterproductive and idiotic.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Couldn't you reword that to say "if you are unable to work on what bosses considers important then don't be an employee." I tend to agree that some bosses are micro managing idiots. But I had a boss who told me what side of the desk my phone had to be on - even though I'm left handed.
    - michaelochurch 13y ago
      Couldn't you reword that to say "if you are unable to work on what bosses considers important then don't be an employee." I think we're now arguing about the ethical obligation of an employee, which is an open question. Is it (from the most restrictive to the least): (1) to subordinate wholly to one's immediate manager? (2) to act in the corporation's best interest? (3) not to act *against* the corporation's interests? (4) not to use one's employment with the corporation to act against its interests? (5) not to break laws or compete illicitly with the company? The law puts it somewhere on the spectrum between 4 and 5. Breaking 4 is generally considered unethical, except in the case of illegal activity by the company (whistleblowing) or collective bargaining. People I'm describing are at 2-2.5 on that subordinacy spectrum. They're pursuing the joint interest of themselves and the company in a way that attracts middle management opposition. They don't deserve the punishment they'll typically get (termination, possibly worse) for that.
  - sheepmullet 13y ago
    Baby steps mate. I agree with you but think such a view is a bit too progressive for the majority of management. In large organizations there tend to be a lot of pretty arbitrary deadlines and unfortunately overall good work does not seem to offset missing a few arbitrary deadlines. So upper management hammers middle management who in turn hammers the team lead who then either bottles it up or pushes it down onto the plebes below. In startups being different (ehm sorry not a good "cultural fit") is enough to get you fired so good luck if you expect understanding and support. I think the best option is to work in a large organization under a respected, strong, and results driven team lead doing important work.

by wdewind 13y ago

sheepmullet 13y ago

If you have a condition that causes you to spend a few weeks each year working on non-management-approved activities then it is a minor problem and we should be compassionate about it. If somebody had to spend a few extra weeks off work each year to get chemotherapy you'd be a complete bastard to say they were unethical and broke a commitment. That doesn't change just because it is a mental health issue instead of a physical one. If you can accommodate it then you have the ethical obligation to do so.

michaelochurch 13y ago
If you have a condition that causes you to spend a few weeks each year working on non-management-approved activities then it is a minor problem Disagree that it's a problem. Micromanagement is the problem. Side effects of high creativity (whether a person is or is not suffering from a mood disorder) aren't problems. If we desire progress for this world, then society should adapt to its best people, not the reverse. More to the point: if you don't trust people to work on what they consider important, then don't hire them. The idea that every iota of work has to be approved by some silly priesthood is counterproductive and idiotic.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Couldn't you reword that to say "if you are unable to work on what bosses considers important then don't be an employee." I tend to agree that some bosses are micro managing idiots. But I had a boss who told me what side of the desk my phone had to be on - even though I'm left handed.
  - michaelochurch 13y ago
    Couldn't you reword that to say "if you are unable to work on what bosses considers important then don't be an employee." I think we're now arguing about the ethical obligation of an employee, which is an open question. Is it (from the most restrictive to the least): (1) to subordinate wholly to one's immediate manager? (2) to act in the corporation's best interest? (3) not to act *against* the corporation's interests? (4) not to use one's employment with the corporation to act against its interests? (5) not to break laws or compete illicitly with the company? The law puts it somewhere on the spectrum between 4 and 5. Breaking 4 is generally considered unethical, except in the case of illegal activity by the company (whistleblowing) or collective bargaining. People I'm describing are at 2-2.5 on that subordinacy spectrum. They're pursuing the joint interest of themselves and the company in a way that attracts middle management opposition. They don't deserve the punishment they'll typically get (termination, possibly worse) for that.
- sheepmullet 13y ago
  Baby steps mate. I agree with you but think such a view is a bit too progressive for the majority of management. In large organizations there tend to be a lot of pretty arbitrary deadlines and unfortunately overall good work does not seem to offset missing a few arbitrary deadlines. So upper management hammers middle management who in turn hammers the team lead who then either bottles it up or pushes it down onto the plebes below. In startups being different (ehm sorry not a good "cultural fit") is enough to get you fired so good luck if you expect understanding and support. I think the best option is to work in a large organization under a respected, strong, and results driven team lead doing important work.