Equally, never give your 2IC a dressing down in public.
Never argue with your boss (2009)
41–50 of 67 posts
Re: Never argue with your boss (2009)
#42By all means argue with your boss, but:
Do it respectfully and accept the decision if it goes against your advice. Your boss is either aware of issues you are not, or might otherwise have good reasons. In any case there is very seldom 1 "best" solution to a problem.
If your boss is genuinely an idiot, then still accept the decision, but start looking for a new job or assignment to a different team.
Re: Never argue with your boss (2009)
#43Think it also depends on the nature of the disagreement. If it is something judgemental then it makes sense to back down earlier. The boss is the boss after all and he/she might be privy to additional knowledge. If they are straight up wrong in a technical sense then agreeing with the wrong thing is a bigger problem.
Re: Never argue with your boss (2009)
#44Disclaimer: Work culture has changed since 2009 and obviously none of this applies if you work with/for someone who can't take any criticism or disagreement and expects subordination.
I think the issue is not disagreeing with one's boss, but what relationship you have with your boss.
There's a big difference between hostility and wanting to win against the other person vs. trying to find the best possible solution for the team, and clashing on what that should look like.
Some of this is about communication (continually centering on what goal one is trying to reach and validating the other party's perspective) other stuff is basic manners (don't make a public spectacle of your disagreements, especially in front of your boss's boss), but much of it boils down to relationship skills.
I think more people in tech should understand basic relationship skills and how they apply at work. Work is more transactional than a friendship or a marriage, but the core parts still matter: everyone wants to feel seen and heard, not invalidated and attacked.
Re: Never argue with your boss (2009)
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
A manager is the subordinate. Their entire role is to provide for the employees the things and support needed to get their jobs done. Corporations arent the military, there are no "superior's" except in the minds of the mentally and emotionally fragile who think they were put there to rule over others. Steve Jobs famously said, "I don't hire smart people to tell them what to do. I hire them to tell me what to do". He…
There are two things here - Steve might well hire smart people to tell him what to do - but in the end Steve made the choices and drove them through. Management is all about choices with limited information - there is rarely one clear and obvious route forward, but a strategy of following all routes simultaneously will lead to failure as there needs to be focus. So somebody has to make that choice and then drive that…
The way I look at it is that a manager can make decisions with wider scope, but the people under them exert greater control in day-to-day tasks over some narrower scope. In software development, for example, a manager might set goals for some project, but it's individual developers who are actually writing the code that usually have the most leeway to decide for themselves how best to solve some particular problem. (So long as it's within the bounds of what peer reviewers will accept.)
I think org charts would better fit how I think of the organizations they represent if they were drawn upside-down, like a tree.
Re: Never argue with your boss (2009)
#46The article seems to be about arguing with your boss in _public_. Having a fight with anyone in public in a professional environment is pretty intense behaviour. Not saying I've never done it, but it's not usually productive. It takes a lot of skill to get things done your way without alienating people. We should always be careful of how we "debate" in a professional context. Discussion habits picked up on HN transla…
> The article seems to be about arguing with your boss in _public_.
This is the main reason that most abuse happens in companies. Discussions are kept private so nobody can add 1+1 and see how toxic are certain bosses.
This also enables misalignments and lies. I have seen bosses that are will say one thing to one employee and a different one to the next and even a different one upwards to leadership.
Lack of transparency is a red flag for any company. Some personal matters can be discussed privately, but when all discussions are private abuse and chaos are guranteed.
Re: Never argue with your boss (2009)
#47If the company culture doesn't allow you to argue you with your boss, then you can expect that your boss is not allowed to argue with his boss and so on, up to CEO level. Such companies should, in time, go bankrupt because nobody could argue, if CEO makes a bad decision, CEO operates without feedback.
On the other hand, many such companies are protected because: they are too big to fail, have political connections, have monopoly, or oligopoly.
Re: Never argue with your boss (2009)
#481. Not a great job if you truly cant argue with your boss.
2. the concept of arguing with your boss and humiliating them publicly is not the same, the word argue in the title is misused for the story the author tells
Re: Never argue with your boss (2009)
#49This has nothing to do with it being your boss. It is a simple politeness rule, which applies in all situations: never ever get emotional at work.
Disagreeing is fine, arguing is fine, but you have to keep a level head at all times or you will embarrass yourself. It is just as bad (probably worse) to have an emotionally charged argument with someone junior to or level with you than with someone senior to you.
Re: Never argue with your boss (2009)
#50The article seems to be about arguing with your boss in _public_. Having a fight with anyone in public in a professional environment is pretty intense behaviour. Not saying I've never done it, but it's not usually productive. It takes a lot of skill to get things done your way without alienating people. We should always be careful of how we "debate" in a professional context. Discussion habits picked up on HN transla…
> Debate in private, come to a decision and move forward.
This norm is terrible. It's a chief reason California tech companies become dysfunctional. Debate spreads common knowledge and ensures ideas get tested before execution. Hiding discussions is selfish, antisocial behavior that prioritizes your social image over idea quality and everyone's benefit. If you're working for someone who can't tolerate debate, leave.
It's weak leadership indeed that feels like debate undermines authority. A recipe for hell is
1. eradicating formal levels and hierarchy so everyone is "equal" and "ideas win", then
2. establishing a norm that debate never occur in public so that "ideas win" doesn't actually threaten whatever tyranny-of-structurelessness primate power dynamics emerge.
Thoroughly poisonous culture. A strong leader welcomes debate because his authority is secure.