The 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 translate poorly to Slack.
Arguing with your boss in private, now that's a completely different deck of Magic cards. Totally helpful, productive behaviour if done respectfully and constructively. You're there to solve problems together, having differences of opinion is natural. Thrash it out between you in a 1:1, book time to engage and brainstorm.
Be nice, be prepared, find solutions that move things forward without bruising egos, try and get them to think it was their idea.
Importantly, you're coming to a decision in which they get the final say, because it's their team. Once a decision is made, after consultation, you just gotta roll with it. Don't bitch, or moan, or rub it in if things go wrong. Chain of command. One of these days you'll be there too.
If you keep on "losing" or finding yourself in constant conflict with your boss, that suggests a deeper problem. Jobs are like relationships, they've gotta work both ways. Maybe this isn't the right one for you (or them, but just as likely you).
Anyway. Never argue with your boss _in public_. Debate in private, come to a decision and move forward.
> 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.
I agree, though it should be said arguing in public is for people willing to accept the consequences of their actions (retaliation, getting fired etc). That's why ideally you should arrange your life (mentally or materially) in such a way that allows you to act without the fear of being fired, if possible obviously.
Never do that if you're working under a toxic boss, in which case arguing in public is better if at all but one should anyways be working hard to find a new boss!!!
> 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.
> If you're working for someone who can't tolerate debate, leave.
I dunno about you, but I've left a bunch of jobs (or been left) because I thought the people involved could handle debate, when they couldn't.
Your boss is a human, they have issues that may prevent them from accepting your (clearly better ;) ) solution, or they may have context that they can't share (their boss might be pushing for something dumb).
Ultimately, the hierarchy and the power differentials are real, and unless you're happy jumping ship all the time (which I am not, anymore) you need to find a way to deal with disagreements more productively (which often involves letting people save face by disagreeing in private).
> It's a chief reason California tech companies become dysfunctional.
I think the deeper reason for Cali tech dysfunction is the relentless norm of frankly insane positivity, not the ability for people to debate.
> relentless norm of frankly insane positivity, not the ability for people to debate.
They are aspects of the same thing.
Debate implies that things aren't already perfect. "Why would positive people argue", a Californoid might ask, "instead of working together to make something great?".
My chief problem with California tech is that it's structured to reward schmoozing at the expense of ideas themselves and marketed as the opposite. It's unreality.
There's always time for lessons learned, but gloating isn't mature or helpful.
Honestly, I've never stuck around with a bad boss long enough to get into this sort of situation with them. Life is too short.
Most managers I've had a long-term relationship with have been, at worst, overwhelmed or utterly beholden to bad priorities set further up the chain. They all have been decent enough folks, trying to do their best for the organisation.
You gotta spend all your time with these people. Rubbing your correctness in their face ain't going to make either of your work lives better.
Try doing the same with your partner, see how that goes.
As a manager, the people I hired were almost always smarter than me or better than me at various things. That's why i hired them.
I did my best to make sure they were empowered to solve the problems the org needed solving.
Why would I not want their opinions or viewpoints, especially if they differed from my own?
Heck, why would i try to enforce my opinion or viewpoint in the first place?
Not realizing this makes the boss here a crappy manager. Yes, lots of crappy managers exist (for many reasons - one commonly overlooked one being that technicaly knowledge/etc is often shared and discussed much more than manager or organizational knowledge. So it doesn't proliferate as easily and quickly. There are many other reasons, some simpler, some more complex)
Truthfully, I resolved many many more arguments between people (within my own org or between orgs) than between me and someone else.
At the same time, the person arguing with their boss doesn't realize (until much later) their job is not to be technically right. Technically right/good is one of many aspects that are often getting traded off against each other. One thing they seem to not have discussed at all is "is this worth arguing about?". Does this choice really matter? What was the worst thing that happens if they don't do it the way they were arguing about. How likely is that really to happen, and if it does, can you tell early enough to do something about it? etc.
Reading this story feels like someone dragging out an argument continuously that simply didn't need to be argued about at all because it didn't matter enough.
The takeaway isn't that you should avoid arguing with your boss (as others say, you should run away from bosses you can't disagree with). The takeaway is that you should stop and think about whether this is really an argument that needs to be had, instead of arguing about everything because it's not perfect.
Never been a manager, but there comes a point when you realize that you do not have the full picture as a subordinate. Your boss isn’t just managing you. They have a whole team to coordinate with and against the priorities of the rest of the business to stay on track. If you’re not helping them and are even making more work, it will not help your career.
Yeah. My takeaway was sure, on one hand, arguing with your boss isn't going to end well. On the other hand, if arguing with your boss wouldn't end well (meaning you have a well reasoned technical disagreement, not just being insubordinate) then your boss is a bad boss...
I found it pretty ridiculous. I've made a 30 year career "arguing" with bosses. It's literally why they pay me. If they are little dictators then they aren't worth helping.
Agreed. Having a boss say do this just seems completely unprofessional and over the top. I can imagine a speaking style that would lead to this, but it's something beyond just "argument".
> In fact, in the middle of the meeting he announced, “I don’t need this s—“, and walked out of the meeting.
I feel like the real takeaway should be "don't make a competition out of a technical discussion". A culture that doesn't allow openly debating technical decisions sounds like one I wouldn't want to be part of.
Disclaimer: 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.
I don't know. I mean, "never argue" is not a good maxim, imo.
But sure, ultimately your role is to provide your opinion as an expert, but you should step aside if your manager decides otherwise after hearing you. I think it's also correct: you are responsible for the decisions you make (which is true for you and your manager too).
So I think the author should have softened the discussion rather than going for a full confrontation. The boss surely didn't react rationally, or didn't surface their reasoning properly.
But being able to argue with your superiors (and peers) "the right way" is one of the most important skills to have in the workplace imo.
"I realize that my boss and I could have probably worked out some face-saving compromise behind closed doors before having any sort of public discussions."
Absolutely this. Nothing wrong with disagreeing, but don't have a screaming row with your boss in front of the team.
The title should be “Never argue with your boss disrespectfully”. In front of his boss nonetheless. Arguing with your boss is fine, just don’t throw tantrums.
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.
Keeping the temperature low on these kinds of discussions seems like solid advice. Two interesting things about the conclusion I noticed:
1. The author left before any concrete negative outcomes came to pass. In particular, they may be mistaken that "nobody there really wanted to work with me after that" since they started looking for a job immediately. Sometimes people have a tendency to do too much pessimistic mind reading.
> If I was willing to engineer a scene like had just transpired in our all-hands meeting, how could they trust me as a member of their team? I might turn on them next.
> I also started looking for a new job, because I realized nobody there really wanted to work with me after that. I was gone a month later, and my boss lasted several more years.
2. The author also didn't stick around long enough after their faux pas to see the outcome of their architectural decisions. Maybe they weren't right after all.
I think there is a strong cultural effects to whether this is true.
I've worked in multinationals and I've noticed that in the US ( east coast in particular ) it's much more hierarchical - where arguing with your boss in public could be a firing offence.
> I've worked in multinationals and I've noticed that in the US ( east coast in particular ) it's much more hierarchical - where arguing with your boss in public could be a firing offence.
> This is less so in Europe.
On the other hand, in big German companies there often exist more hierarchy levels. In this sense, I would rather call German companies more hierarchical.
The difference is (also from your description) rather that in the USA, bosses often expect their underlings to be much more "ideologically aligned" to the their principles [1], which they often don't state/disclose from beginning. Enforcing such an ideological alignment is much less accepted in big German companies (at least in the lower hierarchical levels).
---
[1] In German, there exists the word "[die] Linientreue" for this, which can literally translated to "line loyalty". Dictionaries give the translation "true to party principles", but I would claim that this "politically connotated" translation is rather restrictive.
> how could they trust me as a member of their team? I might turn on them next.
This is also why you shouldn't gossip negatively about anyone, and you shouldn't make jokes about employee termination. People will view you as a threat. The threat perception will become dislike and they won't even know why they dislike you, they just do. Then they will hallucinate that you're a hopeless poor performer whatever your performance actually is, because they've already emotionally decided that you're awful.
If 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.
Or you have the regrets when you needed to speak up and you didn't because you value your job security more than your duty: crooked or woefully incompetent boss. In the army instructors strongly warned about jumping chain of command. But you know, sometimes it gets very ugly, specially when they come after you.
Think 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.
I disagree with the final outcome that's just in private. If it's an open brainstorm to decide on solution, you don't have time to book the secret 1 to 1.
I think it's just respecting hierarchy, disagree, raise your concerns, if your boss overrules just accept it, you made your concerns known, they and the team heard of you, if they proceed anyways they accept the risk.
No point in forcing yourself to be the shot caller when it's not your job or responsibility to make the final decision.
Accepting the team consensus and respecting hierarchy is part of the game, unless you are a business owner, you are paid to do as told as an expert give your opinion. Nothing more you can do beyond that.
I think it's important to at least politely put your argument in writing in an email, not on Slack, so it's documented formally. In the email, document the serious issues with the boss' solution. If possible, Cc it to the boss' manager. Make sure to Bcc the email to yourself or take a photo or screenshot of it for legal reasons, so if you're retaliated against, you have dated evidence. This holds the boss responsible for his decision without coming in the way.
Also, those asking to switch the job haven't seen that all nearly all bosses have this problem, and switching jobs probably won't fix it.
This 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.
1. 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
You don't necessarily need to argue a lot of times. Often the much better way is to deploy the rhetoric equivalent of a Judo throw, by using the momentum of the other side and ever so gently redirect it to have them lose their footing a few steps later. Do this well enough and it isn't even immediately clear who caused it.
Directly arguing has the downside that people with big egos will harden their positions even (or rather: especially) if they suspect they they might be wrong. If your goal is to let of steam while causing destruction, that is a valid strategy, if your goal is to reframe a topic, refute a point and/or win over the room, it often is not.
That all being said, we are talking about a public argument, not about private discussions. If you can make good points, bring the receipts arguing for those points is a good idea. However if given the chance it is a good idea to make these point in a smaller circle, in writing or in a one-in-one with your boss first, to give them the chance to agree with you when it is easy, instead of feeling put on the spot in front of everybody.
100%, don't argue with your boss. Sometimes, depending on how they phrased a statement or proposal, you can present contradictory facts but never claim to have the answer.
Either the boss wants to hear your opinion or they don't. You need to look at body language, tone and wording to decide. In any case, they must decide.
Disagreeing in front of other employees is especially risky... It can work in your favor sometimes, but only if it serves the boss... For example, you might be providing the boss with an opportunity to demonstrate humility over a topic which they don't pride themselves on. If the boss switches and agrees with you, can improve your image in front of other employees and the boss gets to look like they are a good listener and rational decision maker. Everyone wins.
It also rests heavily on the boss' personality. Some people always have to be right, else they hate you.
>
Either the boss wants to hear your opinion or they don't. You need to look at body language, tone and wording to decide.
Not everybody is adept at interpreting such subtle signs. A particular problem is when bosses say things like "Your opinion is appreciated.", "I value honest feedback.", blabla, but give different body signs.
In my opinion, this problem is less marked in Germany than the USA, because people tend to use of such sugar-coated lies much less in Germany.
Fully agree. Anyone can get the signals wrong. I guess you should watch how other employees (who have been around for longer) interact with the boss. If everyone is always praising the boss and never criticizing, there's a reason it's like this.
Have seen this myself in practise. Just like in this case it didnt end well. But this «lesson» so to speak is just the same concept in everyday life applied to work. You should generally never argue with authorities publically. It never ends well. Perhaps some free speech fanatics mean otherwise, but free speech doesn’t really exist.
> You should generally never argue with authorities publically. It never ends well. Perhaps some free speech fanatics mean otherwise, but free speech doesn’t really exist.
This is not so much about free speech (because if it was, the problem wouldn't exist so much in countries that have a different concept of free speech from the USA), but rather that a scientific education strongly nudges you into becoming a "truth-seeker", and in pursuit of this argue for your point.
This is why in particular geeks/nerds love to argue with their boss when they believe he isn't correct.
So, I rather fault employees that they look for employees with a university degree, while in reality they want employees that don't want to start scientific disputes with their boss ( exactly what the scientific education at a university drills you towards).
If unis main job was to argue for truth you would have a quite different world. Unis main role these days is to make sure you regurgitate whatever they preach and that's it. That's why most politicians are actors informally and formally.
In East Asia, particularly in Korea, there is a term called 'ganeon' (諫言, remonstration). It refers to speaking up when a superior's approach is wrong, in order to correct it.
But does a East Asian Confucian perspective always require it? Not necessarily.
From the Confucian viewpoint, an organization is not simply an arena for individual logical debates. Everyone has their own role and position, and when those roles collapse, the order of the community collapses.
'A superior must decide like a superior. A subordinate must remonstrate and support like a subordinate.'
What the OP's post did was not just make the boss look wrong. It declared that the boss 'could not function as a boss.' That's why the colleagues felt fear. It wasn't 'technically correct.' It was 'that person can publicly destroy the team's hierarchy.'
In Confucian terms, this is called 'remonstration without propriety.'
Good remonstration usually involves speaking privately first, respecting the other person's social face, and presenting options while preserving the form that the superior is the decision-maker. Those options should include risks and alternatives, so that it leads toward the direction you want.
In other words, you start by acknowledging that the boss's point is valid, then frame your disagreement as a risk you are worried about, but you're concerned about certain risks. If you say it that way, team members will later remember that you warned them, and the boss can't avoid responsibility either.
Of course, the boss also needs to have the right 'virtue' for that position. They need to listen to why subordinates object, and have the ability to make technical judgments. Storming out of a meeting saying 'I don't need this shit' is not boss-like behavior, so in an East Asian perspective, both sides are at fault. But many would see the subordinate who shattered the other's face as more at fault.
And of course, human relationships don't always have a right answer. I don't always follow this myself either—I fight with clients every day.
>'A superior must decide like a superior. A subordinate must remonstrate and support like a subordinate.' Everyone has their own role and position, and when those roles collapse, the order of the community collapses.
Sometimes it's the plane that collapses:
“The Korean culture has two features—respect for seniority and age, and quite an authoritarian style,” said Thomas Kochan, a professor at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “You put those two together, and you may get more one-way communication—and not a lot of it upward,” Kochan said. The Asiana pilots on Flight 214 apparently did not discuss their predicament, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing cockpit voice recordings. As a general point of reference about the Korean language, you speak to superiors and elders in an honorific form that requires more words and can be more oblique. Less, “Yo! You want water?”; and more, “It’s a warm day for a nice refreshment, no?” This may sound trivial. But put this in the context of a cockpit, where seconds and decision-making are crucial and you get an idea of how communication and culture matter."
"Nearing the end of the 1990s, Korean Air had more plane crashes than almost any other airline around the globe. Cockpit miscommunication has been a persistent factor in these accidents. For example, the Korean Air Flight 801 crash was attributed to the pilot’s decision to land despite the junior officer’s disagreement, evidence of high power distance — a culture that denotes a heavily hierarchical society. Gladwell argues that this innate behavior of deep reverence towards elders and superiors highly contributes to cockpit miscommunication, especially on planes designed to be flown by two equals. Unsurprisingly, it has been found that the safest airlines are often from countries whose cultures do not value strict hierarchies."
That's actually a valid point. In East Asian societies, there's a fundamental difficulty in directly challenging a superior. So it would be fair to say that in such cases, the organization's self-correcting mechanism fails to function.
In reality, if you take extreme assumptions about most situations, counterexamples are bound to appear. But the cases we usually talk about tend to be about 'boundary issues'. things that happen near a certain line.
Your example is actually a typical pathology of East Asian culture. The ideal is what I described, but when it doesn't work ideally, it leads to uncritical acceptance of a superior's orders
If you take extreme examples for any situation, there are many difficult points. Conversely, we can't say that extreme cases never occur. So it's more accurate to say that I'm speaking based on cases that fall within the general distribution.
You brought up a counterexample to my point, but that's actually a problem that frequently materializes in East Asian societies. I have no intention of denying that. But what I'm describing is the ideal theory.
As always, finding the balance is the difficult part.
Part of the problem with all this is the unquestioned validity of the idea of a "superior".
There are things that managers are good at and things that their staff are good at. For technical roles, a manager doesn't need to be superior to their staff when it comes to technical decisions - in fact if they are, it implies a problem.
Once you start viewing work as a collaborative exercise, a lot of these problems disappear.
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 didn't always live up to that but his point was valid.
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 focus through the organisation.
This can be very difficult when the choice isn't clear and obvious - as lots of smart people will have different views.
That's the art of management - you need to make the right choices most of the time. and when you've made the wrong one correct quickly, but you also need to be able to get the organisation to rally behind that choice, even if not everyone agrees.
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.
Sure - though this thinking can lead to the common misconception that CEO's just need to be generically good managers and not experts in the area the company operates in.
I think this is often wrong for two reasons
- the layers are not entirely disconnected - the devil is often in the details
- hard to detect BS from subordinates
The 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 translate poorly to Slack.
Arguing with your boss in private, now that's a completely different deck of Magic cards. Totally helpful, productive behaviour if done respectfully and constructively. You're there to solve problems together, having differences of opinion is natural. Thrash it out between you in a 1:1, book time to engage and brainstorm.
Be nice, be prepared, find solutions that move things forward without bruising egos, try and get them to think it was their idea.
Importantly, you're coming to a decision in which they get the final say, because it's their team. Once a decision is made, after consultation, you just gotta roll with it. Don't bitch, or moan, or rub it in if things go wrong. Chain of command. One of these days you'll be there too.
If you keep on "losing" or finding yourself in constant conflict with your boss, that suggests a deeper problem. Jobs are like relationships, they've gotta work both ways. Maybe this isn't the right one for you (or them, but just as likely you).
Anyway. Never argue with your boss _in public_. Debate in private, come to a decision and move forward.
> 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.
I agree, though it should be said arguing in public is for people willing to accept the consequences of their actions (retaliation, getting fired etc). That's why ideally you should arrange your life (mentally or materially) in such a way that allows you to act without the fear of being fired, if possible obviously.
Yes. When management is bad then having a public discussion will end up in retaliation.
My advice is not to always discuss in public, but that companies should encourage that behaviour and punish toxic management.
You made a very good point.
>> Arguing with your boss in private
Never do that if you're working under a toxic boss, in which case arguing in public is better if at all but one should anyways be working hard to find a new boss!!!
Yeah, hundred percent, find a new boss.
> 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.
> If you're working for someone who can't tolerate debate, leave.
I dunno about you, but I've left a bunch of jobs (or been left) because I thought the people involved could handle debate, when they couldn't.
Your boss is a human, they have issues that may prevent them from accepting your (clearly better ;) ) solution, or they may have context that they can't share (their boss might be pushing for something dumb).
Ultimately, the hierarchy and the power differentials are real, and unless you're happy jumping ship all the time (which I am not, anymore) you need to find a way to deal with disagreements more productively (which often involves letting people save face by disagreeing in private).
> It's a chief reason California tech companies become dysfunctional.
I think the deeper reason for Cali tech dysfunction is the relentless norm of frankly insane positivity, not the ability for people to debate.
> relentless norm of frankly insane positivity, not the ability for people to debate.
They are aspects of the same thing.
Debate implies that things aren't already perfect. "Why would positive people argue", a Californoid might ask, "instead of working together to make something great?".
My chief problem with California tech is that it's structured to reward schmoozing at the expense of ideas themselves and marketed as the opposite. It's unreality.
> Don't bitch, or moan, or rub it in if things go wrong. Chain of command. One of these days you'll be there too.
No I don't think it's how it works at all. If you want to show value you should absolutely point out you were right.
There's always time for lessons learned, but gloating isn't mature or helpful.
Honestly, I've never stuck around with a bad boss long enough to get into this sort of situation with them. Life is too short.
Most managers I've had a long-term relationship with have been, at worst, overwhelmed or utterly beholden to bad priorities set further up the chain. They all have been decent enough folks, trying to do their best for the organisation.
You gotta spend all your time with these people. Rubbing your correctness in their face ain't going to make either of your work lives better.
Try doing the same with your partner, see how that goes.
Everyone in this story sucks.
As a manager, the people I hired were almost always smarter than me or better than me at various things. That's why i hired them.
I did my best to make sure they were empowered to solve the problems the org needed solving.
Why would I not want their opinions or viewpoints, especially if they differed from my own?
Heck, why would i try to enforce my opinion or viewpoint in the first place?
Not realizing this makes the boss here a crappy manager. Yes, lots of crappy managers exist (for many reasons - one commonly overlooked one being that technicaly knowledge/etc is often shared and discussed much more than manager or organizational knowledge. So it doesn't proliferate as easily and quickly. There are many other reasons, some simpler, some more complex)
Truthfully, I resolved many many more arguments between people (within my own org or between orgs) than between me and someone else.
At the same time, the person arguing with their boss doesn't realize (until much later) their job is not to be technically right. Technically right/good is one of many aspects that are often getting traded off against each other. One thing they seem to not have discussed at all is "is this worth arguing about?". Does this choice really matter? What was the worst thing that happens if they don't do it the way they were arguing about. How likely is that really to happen, and if it does, can you tell early enough to do something about it? etc.
Reading this story feels like someone dragging out an argument continuously that simply didn't need to be argued about at all because it didn't matter enough.
The takeaway isn't that you should avoid arguing with your boss (as others say, you should run away from bosses you can't disagree with). The takeaway is that you should stop and think about whether this is really an argument that needs to be had, instead of arguing about everything because it's not perfect.
Never been a manager, but there comes a point when you realize that you do not have the full picture as a subordinate. Your boss isn’t just managing you. They have a whole team to coordinate with and against the priorities of the rest of the business to stay on track. If you’re not helping them and are even making more work, it will not help your career.
[dead]
No, boss -- you suck.
See what I did there?
If your boss is so fragile they can't take a healthy debate or discussion or stand to be challenged on anything then find a new boss.
Yeah. My takeaway was sure, on one hand, arguing with your boss isn't going to end well. On the other hand, if arguing with your boss wouldn't end well (meaning you have a well reasoned technical disagreement, not just being insubordinate) then your boss is a bad boss...
If finding a new boss was that easy, we wouldn't have people job hunting for months and getting 0 responses...
Did you read the article? It provided a pretty good argument against exactly this attitude.
I found it pretty ridiculous. I've made a 30 year career "arguing" with bosses. It's literally why they pay me. If they are little dictators then they aren't worth helping.
Agreed. Having a boss say do this just seems completely unprofessional and over the top. I can imagine a speaking style that would lead to this, but it's something beyond just "argument".
> In fact, in the middle of the meeting he announced, “I don’t need this s—“, and walked out of the meeting.
I didn't read the article, because I got two PR_CONNECT_RESET_ERRORs in a row, I don't know whose fault it is, but I blame the bosses.
I feel like the real takeaway should be "don't make a competition out of a technical discussion". A culture that doesn't allow openly debating technical decisions sounds like one I wouldn't want to be part of.
Disclaimer: 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.
I don't know. I mean, "never argue" is not a good maxim, imo.
But sure, ultimately your role is to provide your opinion as an expert, but you should step aside if your manager decides otherwise after hearing you. I think it's also correct: you are responsible for the decisions you make (which is true for you and your manager too).
So I think the author should have softened the discussion rather than going for a full confrontation. The boss surely didn't react rationally, or didn't surface their reasoning properly.
But being able to argue with your superiors (and peers) "the right way" is one of the most important skills to have in the workplace imo.
"I realize that my boss and I could have probably worked out some face-saving compromise behind closed doors before having any sort of public discussions."
Absolutely this. Nothing wrong with disagreeing, but don't have a screaming row with your boss in front of the team.
The title should be “Never argue with your boss disrespectfully”. In front of his boss nonetheless. Arguing with your boss is fine, just don’t throw tantrums.
By 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.
Keeping the temperature low on these kinds of discussions seems like solid advice. Two interesting things about the conclusion I noticed:
1. The author left before any concrete negative outcomes came to pass. In particular, they may be mistaken that "nobody there really wanted to work with me after that" since they started looking for a job immediately. Sometimes people have a tendency to do too much pessimistic mind reading.
> If I was willing to engineer a scene like had just transpired in our all-hands meeting, how could they trust me as a member of their team? I might turn on them next.
> I also started looking for a new job, because I realized nobody there really wanted to work with me after that. I was gone a month later, and my boss lasted several more years.
2. The author also didn't stick around long enough after their faux pas to see the outcome of their architectural decisions. Maybe they weren't right after all.
Seems to be very dependant on culture at the workplace.
Sure, I agree, for when I worried in for example Singapore, I would not agree for Scandinavia
I live in Sweden. They are really really really really overly sensitive about anything.
The being direct thing only applies when they can be mean to you, not when they did something wrong.
I think there is a strong cultural effects to whether this is true.
I've worked in multinationals and I've noticed that in the US ( east coast in particular ) it's much more hierarchical - where arguing with your boss in public could be a firing offence.
This is less so in Europe.
> I've worked in multinationals and I've noticed that in the US ( east coast in particular ) it's much more hierarchical - where arguing with your boss in public could be a firing offence.
> This is less so in Europe.
On the other hand, in big German companies there often exist more hierarchy levels. In this sense, I would rather call German companies more hierarchical.
The difference is (also from your description) rather that in the USA, bosses often expect their underlings to be much more "ideologically aligned" to the their principles [1], which they often don't state/disclose from beginning. Enforcing such an ideological alignment is much less accepted in big German companies (at least in the lower hierarchical levels).
---
[1] In German, there exists the word "[die] Linientreue" for this, which can literally translated to "line loyalty". Dictionaries give the translation "true to party principles", but I would claim that this "politically connotated" translation is rather restrictive.
> how could they trust me as a member of their team? I might turn on them next.
This is also why you shouldn't gossip negatively about anyone, and you shouldn't make jokes about employee termination. People will view you as a threat. The threat perception will become dislike and they won't even know why they dislike you, they just do. Then they will hallucinate that you're a hopeless poor performer whatever your performance actually is, because they've already emotionally decided that you're awful.
If 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.
Or you have the regrets when you needed to speak up and you didn't because you value your job security more than your duty: crooked or woefully incompetent boss. In the army instructors strongly warned about jumping chain of command. But you know, sometimes it gets very ugly, specially when they come after you.
Think 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.
In a great display of irony, these comments are arguing hard and publicly against the conclusion
> In a great display of irony, these comments are arguing hard and publicly against the conclusion
There is no boss involved in the HN discussion. :-)
This hits close to home.
In academia arguing is sort of your job, or at least part of it.
So when a supervisor can't/won't understand their student's argument, the situation feels very futile.
Probably there's examples of constructive resolutions somewhere out there
I disagree with the final outcome that's just in private. If it's an open brainstorm to decide on solution, you don't have time to book the secret 1 to 1.
I think it's just respecting hierarchy, disagree, raise your concerns, if your boss overrules just accept it, you made your concerns known, they and the team heard of you, if they proceed anyways they accept the risk.
No point in forcing yourself to be the shot caller when it's not your job or responsibility to make the final decision.
Accepting the team consensus and respecting hierarchy is part of the game, unless you are a business owner, you are paid to do as told as an expert give your opinion. Nothing more you can do beyond that.
Equally, never give your 2IC a dressing down in public.
That's because you are doing a play with a specific role and dialogs. That role and its script doesn't include arguments.
I think it's important to at least politely put your argument in writing in an email, not on Slack, so it's documented formally. In the email, document the serious issues with the boss' solution. If possible, Cc it to the boss' manager. Make sure to Bcc the email to yourself or take a photo or screenshot of it for legal reasons, so if you're retaliated against, you have dated evidence. This holds the boss responsible for his decision without coming in the way.
Also, those asking to switch the job haven't seen that all nearly all bosses have this problem, and switching jobs probably won't fix it.
This 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.
1. 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
You don't necessarily need to argue a lot of times. Often the much better way is to deploy the rhetoric equivalent of a Judo throw, by using the momentum of the other side and ever so gently redirect it to have them lose their footing a few steps later. Do this well enough and it isn't even immediately clear who caused it.
Directly arguing has the downside that people with big egos will harden their positions even (or rather: especially) if they suspect they they might be wrong. If your goal is to let of steam while causing destruction, that is a valid strategy, if your goal is to reframe a topic, refute a point and/or win over the room, it often is not.
That all being said, we are talking about a public argument, not about private discussions. If you can make good points, bring the receipts arguing for those points is a good idea. However if given the chance it is a good idea to make these point in a smaller circle, in writing or in a one-in-one with your boss first, to give them the chance to agree with you when it is easy, instead of feeling put on the spot in front of everybody.
100%, don't argue with your boss. Sometimes, depending on how they phrased a statement or proposal, you can present contradictory facts but never claim to have the answer.
Either the boss wants to hear your opinion or they don't. You need to look at body language, tone and wording to decide. In any case, they must decide.
Disagreeing in front of other employees is especially risky... It can work in your favor sometimes, but only if it serves the boss... For example, you might be providing the boss with an opportunity to demonstrate humility over a topic which they don't pride themselves on. If the boss switches and agrees with you, can improve your image in front of other employees and the boss gets to look like they are a good listener and rational decision maker. Everyone wins.
It also rests heavily on the boss' personality. Some people always have to be right, else they hate you.
> Either the boss wants to hear your opinion or they don't. You need to look at body language, tone and wording to decide.
Not everybody is adept at interpreting such subtle signs. A particular problem is when bosses say things like "Your opinion is appreciated.", "I value honest feedback.", blabla, but give different body signs.
In my opinion, this problem is less marked in Germany than the USA, because people tend to use of such sugar-coated lies much less in Germany.
Fully agree. Anyone can get the signals wrong. I guess you should watch how other employees (who have been around for longer) interact with the boss. If everyone is always praising the boss and never criticizing, there's a reason it's like this.
My DNS blocked this website because of the rule:
||righteousit.com^
HaGeZi Threat Intelligence Feeds - Medium version
Therefore sorry, no vote.
Have seen this myself in practise. Just like in this case it didnt end well. But this «lesson» so to speak is just the same concept in everyday life applied to work. You should generally never argue with authorities publically. It never ends well. Perhaps some free speech fanatics mean otherwise, but free speech doesn’t really exist.
> You should generally never argue with authorities publically. It never ends well. Perhaps some free speech fanatics mean otherwise, but free speech doesn’t really exist.
This is not so much about free speech (because if it was, the problem wouldn't exist so much in countries that have a different concept of free speech from the USA), but rather that a scientific education strongly nudges you into becoming a "truth-seeker", and in pursuit of this argue for your point.
This is why in particular geeks/nerds love to argue with their boss when they believe he isn't correct.
So, I rather fault employees that they look for employees with a university degree, while in reality they want employees that don't want to start scientific disputes with their boss ( exactly what the scientific education at a university drills you towards).
---
Addendum: In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48918117 silentmafia writes down a related observation:
> In academia arguing is sort of your job, or at least part of it.
If unis main job was to argue for truth you would have a quite different world. Unis main role these days is to make sure you regurgitate whatever they preach and that's it. That's why most politicians are actors informally and formally.
In East Asia, particularly in Korea, there is a term called 'ganeon' (諫言, remonstration). It refers to speaking up when a superior's approach is wrong, in order to correct it.
But does a East Asian Confucian perspective always require it? Not necessarily.
From the Confucian viewpoint, an organization is not simply an arena for individual logical debates. Everyone has their own role and position, and when those roles collapse, the order of the community collapses.
'A superior must decide like a superior. A subordinate must remonstrate and support like a subordinate.'
What the OP's post did was not just make the boss look wrong. It declared that the boss 'could not function as a boss.' That's why the colleagues felt fear. It wasn't 'technically correct.' It was 'that person can publicly destroy the team's hierarchy.'
In Confucian terms, this is called 'remonstration without propriety.'
Good remonstration usually involves speaking privately first, respecting the other person's social face, and presenting options while preserving the form that the superior is the decision-maker. Those options should include risks and alternatives, so that it leads toward the direction you want.
In other words, you start by acknowledging that the boss's point is valid, then frame your disagreement as a risk you are worried about, but you're concerned about certain risks. If you say it that way, team members will later remember that you warned them, and the boss can't avoid responsibility either.
Of course, the boss also needs to have the right 'virtue' for that position. They need to listen to why subordinates object, and have the ability to make technical judgments. Storming out of a meeting saying 'I don't need this shit' is not boss-like behavior, so in an East Asian perspective, both sides are at fault. But many would see the subordinate who shattered the other's face as more at fault.
And of course, human relationships don't always have a right answer. I don't always follow this myself either—I fight with clients every day.
>'A superior must decide like a superior. A subordinate must remonstrate and support like a subordinate.' Everyone has their own role and position, and when those roles collapse, the order of the community collapses.
Sometimes it's the plane that collapses:
“The Korean culture has two features—respect for seniority and age, and quite an authoritarian style,” said Thomas Kochan, a professor at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “You put those two together, and you may get more one-way communication—and not a lot of it upward,” Kochan said. The Asiana pilots on Flight 214 apparently did not discuss their predicament, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing cockpit voice recordings. As a general point of reference about the Korean language, you speak to superiors and elders in an honorific form that requires more words and can be more oblique. Less, “Yo! You want water?”; and more, “It’s a warm day for a nice refreshment, no?” This may sound trivial. But put this in the context of a cockpit, where seconds and decision-making are crucial and you get an idea of how communication and culture matter."
"Nearing the end of the 1990s, Korean Air had more plane crashes than almost any other airline around the globe. Cockpit miscommunication has been a persistent factor in these accidents. For example, the Korean Air Flight 801 crash was attributed to the pilot’s decision to land despite the junior officer’s disagreement, evidence of high power distance — a culture that denotes a heavily hierarchical society. Gladwell argues that this innate behavior of deep reverence towards elders and superiors highly contributes to cockpit miscommunication, especially on planes designed to be flown by two equals. Unsurprisingly, it has been found that the safest airlines are often from countries whose cultures do not value strict hierarchies."
https://www.cnbc.com/2013/07/09/korean-culture-may-offer-clu...
https://leonogas.medium.com/thinking-beyond-cultural-legacy-...
That's actually a valid point. In East Asian societies, there's a fundamental difficulty in directly challenging a superior. So it would be fair to say that in such cases, the organization's self-correcting mechanism fails to function.
In reality, if you take extreme assumptions about most situations, counterexamples are bound to appear. But the cases we usually talk about tend to be about 'boundary issues'. things that happen near a certain line.
Your example is actually a typical pathology of East Asian culture. The ideal is what I described, but when it doesn't work ideally, it leads to uncritical acceptance of a superior's orders
If you take extreme examples for any situation, there are many difficult points. Conversely, we can't say that extreme cases never occur. So it's more accurate to say that I'm speaking based on cases that fall within the general distribution.
You brought up a counterexample to my point, but that's actually a problem that frequently materializes in East Asian societies. I have no intention of denying that. But what I'm describing is the ideal theory.
As always, finding the balance is the difficult part.
Part of the problem with all this is the unquestioned validity of the idea of a "superior".
There are things that managers are good at and things that their staff are good at. For technical roles, a manager doesn't need to be superior to their staff when it comes to technical decisions - in fact if they are, it implies a problem.
Once you start viewing work as a collaborative exercise, a lot of these problems disappear.
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 didn't always live up to that but his point was valid.
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 focus through the organisation.
This can be very difficult when the choice isn't clear and obvious - as lots of smart people will have different views.
That's the art of management - you need to make the right choices most of the time. and when you've made the wrong one correct quickly, but you also need to be able to get the organisation to rally behind that choice, even if not everyone agrees.
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.
Sure - though this thinking can lead to the common misconception that CEO's just need to be generically good managers and not experts in the area the company operates in.
I think this is often wrong for two reasons
yet the salaries impose hierarchies..
Salary is supposed to imply risk. The higher the responsibility the higher the risk the higher the reward. That’s another topic on its own.
[flagged]
[dead]