People leave managers, not companies

>consistently being late is a sign of disrespect.

What I'm reading here is that you're perceiving it (perhaps accurately, perhaps not) as a threat to one's dominance as manager.

I think you may be using the word respect as, say, a capo would - as in, "respect the chain of command" or as cartman would say "respect mah authoritah"!

If true, then that signals a certain level of insecurity over one's position which I think may be an unfortunate signal to send. As an employee I would see that as weakness, especially if combined with technical incompetence.

>If you still think it's unreasonable, consider if your employer paid you a couple of days late - is this still ok?

It's funny, an employer actually asked me that in my first job and I shrugged my shoulders and I said I probably wouldn't notice, which was an answer that clearly infuriated him.

He later fired me (a real blessing in disguise), and the last chunk of pay actually did come in about 4 days late - something I was keeping a close eye on because I was concerned he may not pay me at all. I am absolutely convinced it was him being spiteful - he did payroll himself and there was no other reason I could see for it being late.

I had a good chuckle over that one.

>Some programmers have the attitude that they are indispensable and can behave anyway they like.

Often it's because they are and they can. I mean, nobody's indispensable of course, but the nature of what they do means that they can create (or destroy) a lot of value and don't have much of a reason to fear termination. This tension between that and managerial refusal to recognize it because it signals a threat to their dominance has, I think, been the result of a lot of self destructive behavior in this industry. A lot of people would rather feel powerful than keep a healthy bottom line. Their prerogative, I suppose. It's good to recognize this and point it out when it happens though, because, for instance, as a shareholder I wouldn't want to be bullshitted about what went down.

I think you should read this:

https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-legally-own-another-person...

By his definition, you think programmers are "too free", no?

Can relate too. I'm going through this right now and it kills me. I'm not a real manager but I have a number of devs I oversee in some aspects and it's obvious to me some are underused, undervalued, or underchallenged. The problem might be that as a lead I empathize /too much/, but it drives me crazy that in the end I'm just a proxy for communication with very little power for change. I feel like I'm always making up excuses for the company's decisions and that's not good either.

No, hot

You just literally defined subjective by using a "story" rather than an objective measure.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I can certainly see how you could interpret my remarks on disrespect as "perceiving it (...) as a threat to one's dominance", but this was certainly not my intention.

My context is of never having had a 'bad' manager, they have always been agreeable and pleasant with a good technical understanding and (I can only assume) high self-esteem.

I think I have used the word respect in two slightly different ways: one when describing employer/employee relationship and one where describing manager/managed.

When I talk about disrespect in the context of a manager I mean it on more of an interpersonal relationship level, not as a struggle for dominance in some sort of power structure.

> "...As an employee I would see that as weakness, especially if combined with technical incompetence."

Adding the bit about "technical incompetence" sound to me like you are projecting certain other attributes on the hypothetical manager that we are discussing. What has been your experience with managers?

> "It's funny, an employer actually asked me that in my first job and I shrugged my shoulders and I said I probably wouldn't notice, which was an answer that clearly infuriated him."

When you have few bills to pay and/or other obligations then this attitude is fine, but I think for a large group of people (e.g. with families to support) this would be a real problem.

The point I was trying to make in the paragraph about "programmers acting any way they like" was that this may be an accept/successful strategy in the short term, but it may not be optimal long term. However indispensable you are now there is someone somewhere out there looking to optimize your job or make your skill set irrelevant. It's certainly possible that you are the exception and that no one will be able to do this to you, but I don't think that it applies to the majority of people reading this thread (I know it doesn't apply to me).

It seems like you view the employer/employee relationship in a very adversarial way, rather than an optimal way for both parties to get something they want. I have had jobs in the past (mainly part time service worker type jobs) where I feel that this attitude is valid. However, most companies I have worked for as a programmer have been small/medium level and started/funded by the same people (no VC money, no faceless career CEO or public shareholders). In these situations I have found that there is no calculated malice or attempt to 'enslave' you, just a few motivated people putting their own money and future on the line to try and make something of value and better themselves.

> "By his definition, you think programmers are "too free", no?"

No, I think a lot of programmers think that they are "too free", but are in-fact only "short term too free"