Hacker News Reader

That he can count on you to do what needs to be done. You will go out of your way for her. If you've ever said "this isn't my job" then you will have only an adversarial relationship.

True to the extent that it is actually related to your job in a larger sense and doing so won't adversely affect your ability to do your 'real' job. Many managers will just keeping adding more and more responsibilities to their 'best' workers until they either start saying "no", quit or burn out, often without any malice or ill intent.

That being said there are better ways of phrasing it than "this isn't my job". Saying something along the lines of "if I do that I won't have time to finish X by next Tuesday as I promised. It might be worth checking with Dave and his team if they have someone who can work on it. Otherwise I'll be happy to do it, as long as you're OK with pushing X back a week".

>>Many managers will just keeping adding more and more responsibilities to their 'best' workers until they either start saying "no", quit or burn out, often without any malice or ill intent.

I consider such people total failure as managers and try to avoid.

When I'm in the employee seat, I try to avoid managers that use blanket statements of people. The 'best' workers, where everyone -- including their manager -- goes when they need the hard questions answered, will usually quietly exit. They prefer not to cause a big scene, knowing their value. Value usually has a big catalyst in this, often appearing sudden and unexpected, exit.

Some of these 'total failures' will go on to outdo even their own expectations. Some will do as you prophesize and 'fail' in their burnout, get fired and fade away. The strong ones will come back from it. People quit people, not jobs.

>People quit people, not jobs.

To be fair, I've seen organizations so dysfunctional that even good managers could not protect their people from ambient shittiness. Below certain threshold there is no salvation for organization.

> That being said there are better ways of phrasing it than "this isn't my job". Saying something along the lines of "if I do that I won't have time to finish X by next Tuesday as I promised. It might be worth checking with Dave and his team if they have someone who can work on it. Otherwise I'll be happy to do it, as long as you're OK with pushing X back a week".

Your whole comment was spot-on, but this part in particular resonated with me.

Over my relatively short career, there have been waves of being overloaded and then feeling like I had a handle on things. Whenever it’s been the latter, I can usually trace it back to being consistent with giving folks the simple cause and effect of what they’re asking of me. It helps that I happen to enjoy basically all the work (even remotely) relevant to my role, so when someone asks me for something (for perhaps the 10th time that day), I kindly say that I’d be more than happy to do that “..but this is what that will mean for the first 9 things you asked me for today..”.

I’ve found this to be an organic, effective way of filtering out priorities from background noise without creating that alienation between you and your boss/coworkers that was mentioned further up.

> "Otherwise I'll be happy to do it, as long as you're OK with pushing X back a week"

While I agree with your sentiment, this only works in a workplace where management is willing to adjust deadlines and expectations in these situations. I've seen and experienced (bad) managers with a mindset of "Just get it done" or worse. It's usually a great sign that it's time to move on.

I find the biggest mistake people make is that they think they're getting rewarded for what they did. That isn't how it works.

Think of it. When you go into an electronics store looking for a new TV, do you give the salesperson money based on what he did for you in the past ? You pay for expected future benefit. That's what you select the TV for.

Then think about it from a freelancer hiring process. Freelancers, like employees, are paid before they do anything (or at least the rewards are negotiated).

So the way to get maximum benefit for your job is to slowly improve, but stay far away from your top performance (and maybe you'll actually have enough energy left to have a hobby). You want planned obsolescence tactics, for yourself. Version 2.0 is just around the corner ! Do you want it ?

So the correct way to think about this is "let's talk about what you'd like me to do". I would shy away from the definiteness in those statements, for 2 reasons. Firstly you're unable to make those assessments reliable (so think about it, you're saying, money now, TV comes in 2 weeks, then deliver a substandard model in 2 weeks. If there is one way to turn the most kind person in the world against you, this is it). Secondly, you want to help them to make a decision. You have information they don't have. They have information you don't have. The best move is likely the one you figure out together.

This is just fantastic advice!

Edit to add: If you're wondering why your supervisor might be reticent to allow you to talk I can think of a couple of potential reasons. - They're worried you'll unintentionally leak something - They're worried you'll get hired - They're threatened by you - They want you focused

.... But the easiest way to find out is just to ask.

This is gold and should be treated as such. Following these steps can make your work life very easy.

However, if you really feel like you are right and your boss is wrong then I have some machiavellian advice for the workplace.

1. No one will give you anything because you just asked nicely.

2. Everyone is out for themselves, PERIOD.

If you want more money, a new chair, better tools you have to create some pressure for your boss that can be eliviated by them giving you the thing you want. Example, you don't ask for more money, you make yourself semi-indespensible and then get another offer and say you're leaving. The same can be made of any situation.

The main idea behind this is that there has to be some benefit for your boss other than making you happy. If he can't see the benefit, create a situation who's solution is the outcome you want to see.

DISCLAIMER: I work with people like this, it's game of thrones level kool aid drinking. Know that you will make your life much more difficult and stressful, but it will work.

So either do what the other guy said and be nice, build a genuine relationship with your boss where they TRUST you and your judgement. Or be prepared to go to war!

Good advice, I picked up some good phraseology for parts of it from the military:

Your "1 up" and "2 up" (i.e your manager, and their manager) - what is your manager working towards, what is the context in which they are operating. Understanding that can play a large part in helping to exercise the good judgement, especially things to potentially flag up early.

Appreciate they're context switching more frequently, launching straight into a complex issue you haven't discussed for a few days is going to cause a massive page fault. Give their brain a chance to get into gear, a quick refresher or catchup can help. Quick being 60 seconds.

agree. Especially with #3 "understand what boss wants"

From the way OP phrased the question, it sounded like the OP felt the manager "owed" the OP.

As in, OP feels going to the conference is a must, "a given", a "constitutional right", and that the manager "wronged" him by not letting him go.

It's a very childish way of viewing the world. As in, I deserve to go to Disneyland. My mom won't let me, so I will now get a "thick skin" to "manage her". An adult would be thinking of helping mom pay the bills.

OP focuses on himself, on what he wants. There is no mention in the question of what the manager wants. It screams "me me me"

The whole post is really about understanding what the boss wants, but #3 is something more specific so I want to iterate more on it:

A lot of people want to help their boss and have a reciprocal relationship. But the mere desire is not enough - you have to have the "street smarts" to be trusted. If you don't know what sort of things will get your boss into trouble with their boss then even if you have a good relationship its unlikely you'll get significant leeway. You are likely to cause problems out of ignorance and a tight leash is to protect you from that.

>OP feels going to the conference is a must, "a given", a "constitutional right", and that the manager "wronged" him by not letting him go. It's a very childish way of viewing the world.

OP's employer does not own them - they have a right to a private life.

While they certainly could not want OP identifying themselves as an agent of their employer when giving a talk, OP is entitled to use their free time / vacation days as they see fit.

That's true as long as they're not talking about their work at the conference. I assume they would be?

What does talking "about their work" actually entail?. I use Cython to do parts of my job. I've given talks about using Cython, drawing on experiences and knowledge gained while doing my job. Was that talking about work?

The most interesting talks in conferences usually are case studies or explain how X was successfully used in a pratical project. It might be hard for OP to give such a talk unless he talked about his personal projects only.

If he is just giving a generic talk about lessons learned without explaining the intricate war stories, thats a dull talk. Those are commodities.

Oh please, unless he developed something patent-worthy or something specific that could be used by direct competition then it's stupid not to let an employee talk about his (technical) work.

In 99.99% the cases where a manager would be so impertinent as to decide upon how the personal time of an employee be used, it's because the manager is a shitty manager and the employee is completely worthless in the eyes of the manager.

It would be a great insult if a manager treated me like that, because it would either imply that I'm too stupid not to know what I can and what I cannot reveal about my work or (the most likely reason) that even though the risk of my presentation hurting the company is minute, I'm so worthless that he thinks he can just tell me what I can and can't do in my free time.

You're arguing against a strawman. In most cases, yes the manager probably is using wrong judgement, but there are valid cases where an employee would be disclosing information that could be used by competitors.

And I'd argue, the employee is tremendously valuable if that is the case, and probably should ask for a huge raise :)

I've seen a very good QA engineer leave a company in exactly the same circumstances.

She wanted to do an external presentation on cutting edge security testing (nothing proprietary, just cutting edge) and the idiot manager wouldn't let her.

She asked why and was given bullshit reasons and so she asked her manager's manager which esentially let her do the presentation and agreed with her she was given bullshit reasons.

Nevertheless her direct manager kept a grudge and she eventually had to leave the company, I'm sure she went to a much better place after that.

She sure didn’t go to a worse place...

Agree 100%.

OP can go to conference, in his/her "own time". OP is an adult and does not need an OK from manager to go to the conference in his/her private life.

But, OP cannot expect the manager to give the OK. OP is not "entitled" to an automatic OK. The manager does not owe OP an OK.

The manager isn't owed the option of declining OP's plans. The manager can decline to give leave, but if it's simply to prevent OP from attending something that the manager disapproves of, then it's sheer inappropriate cattiness.

Unless OP is at risk of exposing privileged information about their company, the manager has no business trying to interfere with OP.

True. Agree. I did not think of that possibility.

OP isn't perfectly unambiguous on the subject, but it's an industry conference, and since asking the manager is a thing, I think it's fair to assume that it's a work conference and that the manager actually has a legitimate say in this - participants in industry conferences are typically identified as representing their company.

Exactly my thoughts. If this to be done during normal work hours when this person would normally be in the office and working (almost certainly the case), then the manager would definitely need to approve this, especially since there is usually a cost associated with attending. If the employee is willing to pay themselves, that still leaves the issue of that time being utilized for non-approved activity during work hours. If the employee decides to take that day off and use their personal time they can certainly attend on their own dime, but the employer can still stipulate that they are explicitly not to represent the company at that event and not introduce themselves as an employee of the company. I don't know what the employer's reasons would be for this, but if that was their desire they are certainly allowed to choose who represents them and when.

Exactly. And I think it's safe to stop after the first statement. OP made no mention of offering to go on their own time and dime, and being rejected.

My employer claims ownership over all IP I produce. I can't give a talk on anything without clearing it first (though my manager would generally not be involved if it was not related to anything we do or use at work).

For professional jobs which I suspect 99% of us on here have responsibility for your CPD (Professional Development) is down to you as much as it is to your employer.

The IEEE and similar bodies would not look very kindly on an employer that barred its members from CPD.

The only time an employer reasonably might not want to have the attendee use his employers name are TLA's or some companies at Blackhat conferences (if you work for a phone company for example)

I use vacation days to attend conferences. It doesn't feel ethical for me to attend a conference during a workday.

It's complicate when I go to a conference, I am connecting with other people in my industry and representing my company, so it's worth it to them. I can actually learn things that are useful there.

- The manager and you have an equal relationship if you are any good at your job as you can replace the manager if you want to.

- This whole "you must submit to your boss" attitude beyond performing the assigned tasks is absurd.

From the manager's POV, OP wants an exception to some policy (written or unwritten). If you want to get away with exceptions you need more than the normal adversarial relationship.

There is a larger argument about whether you should even need an exception for this case, but the remedy for that is to find another job if you can't live with it. However your working life will be a lot easier if you learn to work around inadequacies in your chain of management - no place of work will ever be perfect.

I think the thing that’s missing from this advice is a degree of compromise. Particularly if the policy is ‘unwritten’ aka the managers personal preference. Even with official policy many should be open to exceptions for good reason.

As an employee you won’t get latitude without pushing for it and often for minor things forgiveness can be better than permission. Which isn’t to say it’s a good idea to be adversarial or sneaky but that there is really no need to be walked on either.

I didn't focus on OP because he already knows what he wants. Most people need help emphasizing with the other person not with their own wants/desires and compromise requires empathy. There are situations where someone is being over-accommodating and getting walked over but I didn't get that from the tone of the question.

Asking forgiveness later is another advanced level topic but it generally goes hand in hand with a good working relationship that has already been established. Without that its a quick way to get reprimanded or fired.

Remember, at the end of the day you are spending time on this specifically to get what you want. Its not an altruistic act for your manager.

Asking for forgiveness implies that there’s no formal rule or communicated informal rule. If you already asked you’re not asking for forgiveness. You can’t reprimand or fire someone for breaking a non-existent rule without looking like a total asshole which is going to destroy morale.

No that's not what "ask for forgiveness later" means in this context. It means you are breaking the rules and know you are doing so - however you think the net outcome is worth it. Doing this consistently and not getting fired is really an art.

> From the manager's POV, OP wants an exception to some policy (written or unwritten). If you want to get away with exceptions you need more than the normal adversarial relationship.

No workplace is ever perfect but there is a difference between a manager who understands the reality of the situation and a manager who is a problem that needs to be removed.

The fact you feel ignoring unwritten policies is "special treatment" likely puts you in the latter camp.

> However your working life will be a lot easier if you learn to work around inadequacies in your chain of management

Usually, it is easier to find another job than endure poor management for extended periods of time.

I've only ever been an IC. It's interesting you assumed I was a manager. I've learned the tricks to get almost total freedom at work and wanted to share. Quid pro quo is the name of the game in business. You have to give something to get something and trust is everything.

Cynicism will hold you back.

You basically quoted word for word multiple times what a petty and vindictive manager I worked for about a year said repeatedly in almost all your posts.

Sorry you had that experience. There are certainly cases where this advice is not appropriate and moving on is the right thing.

However accusing people you don't know of being a bad manager (especially when they aren't even a manager at all) is unnecessarily combative.

The only people I have seen give your advice are bad managers. :)

We aren't going to agree.

If the OP really wants to give a talk is because they are seeking for some kind of recognition or ego booster. This sounds very self centered and narcisistic.

There is often a positive career boost from presenting at a conference, which I guess you could so weirdly and pejoratively spin as "recognition" or even "self-centered". But not looking out for oneself is stupid and managers who don't look out for their employees' career development are bad managers.

Being weird and shitty and making claims of "narcissism" should come with evidence, or at least an argument.

> As in, OP feels going to the conference is a must, "a given", a "constitutional right", and that the manager "wronged" him by not letting him go.

Well, free assembly and association are in fact corrolary to "free speech."

If an employee wants to go speak at a conference and the manager says, "Don't" then one of two things are happening:

0. The employer is abusive and undeserving.

1. The manager is attempting to take credit for the employee's work and should be called out.

There really aren't other scenarios; there's no valid reason to attempt to sabotage someone's career arc.

> OP focuses on himself, on what he wants. There is no mention in the question of what the manager wants. It screams "me me me"

Well evidently the manager in question isn't going to help the OP with their career, so someone's gotta do that. When a company aligns its interests with the career growth of their employees, then its a win-win. If it's pitched as an adversarial relationship, then there will be a winner and a loser. I cannot imagine why a good manager or intelligently run company would encourage such an adversarial relationship; it'll cause massive turnover.

> If you've ever said "this isn't my job" then you will have only an adversarial relationship.

I say that all the time to other managers and occasionally to my direct manager.

I'm the only software engineer on staff and we have a pisspoor IT provider, if it's windows I don't touch it because if I do I'll 'own' it and I'm busy enough.

That sounds pretty adversarial, you may have demonstrated GP’s argument.

Learning to say no when it's not in your interests isn't adversarial, as an old boss put it pithily "If you don't respect your time no one else will".

I was hired to write software, we pay a third party for desktop IT, if I then start doing IT technician tasks I'd be the most overpaid IT technician in the country and we'd still be paying for support.

I think 1 is the worst thing ever and results in everyone being underpaid. People need to grow a pair and say that's not my job, pay me more. It's why everyone is underpaid.

H1b doesn't have much choice other than fake politeness.

I was an H1-B for many years. Not true.

Can you share your thoughts on the matter? Thanks.