How to disagree with someone more powerful than you (2016)
hbr.org
hbr.org
* In a healthy team, you ideally shouldn't need special skills to disagree with someone more powerful than you.
* But it's very common for teams to have some degree of egotism and dysfunction, so these are useful skills in practice.
* But on the other hand, this article normalizes that egotism and dysfunction; it implies that the less-powerful person is responsible for working around the more-powerful person's ego, instead of the more-powerful person being responsible for keeping their ego in check.
So even though it's useful advice for the individuals reading it, it subtly erodes the culture of the industry as a whole. And I want to push back on that. If you're in a position of power, it's your responsibility to make sure that people working with you don't need special skills to disagree with you or with other people on the team!
Hierarchies have different lines between "things I can change" and "things I can't change" for different positions. Arguing with your boss over something that's in their "things I can't change" bucket is maybe not so useful.
> If you're in a position of power, it's your responsibility to make sure that people working with you don't need special skills to disagree with you or with other people on the team!
Or alternatively, to make sure they have opportunities to acquire those skills.
I think it depends what level of interpersonal skills we're talking about. If we're talking about baseline interpersonal skills like "being polite" and "understanding the other person's position before disagreeing with it", then I agree it's appropriate to hold the less-powerful person responsible for acquiring those skills.
But some of the tips in this article are more advanced, next-level skills that can be difficult to develop. And even with these skills, there's no guarantee of success if the more-powerful person is too egotistical. A failure mode I've seen is that the less-powerful person is actually being polite and reasonable, but the more-powerful person's manager doesn't want to hold them accountable for their egotism, so the manager says the less-powerful person needs to work on their interpersonal skills instead. (Related: https://lethain.com/hard-to-work-with/)
Case in point: I was working as a contractor and SME for a big organization where the senior leadership was disconnected from reality for reasons that don’t matter. I don’t give a hoot about the culture. I’m there to do a job, and if I’m successful, my company probably gets more business, and we do something really amazing. If I fail, it costs me money and political/reputation capital.
As is often the case, the issue was that perceptions and misunderstanding caused the issue. Once we were able to relate the issue in the right way, most of the disconnect went away.
People are people and you need to play to their needs. Many executives are very insecure, for example, and have a bunch of tools at hand to detect and eliminate threats. We’ve evolved to do this… kids will appeal to mom, dad, grandpa in different ways to achieve the same ends.
> There’s a difference between what should be and what is.
Yes. For example, ideally less-powerful people should have great interpersonal skills and would always phrase their insights in exactly the way that more-powerful people prefer to hear them. But in reality, they don't always have that level of interpersonal skills. So in order for more-powerful people to hear the important information, they need to be open to hearing it in ways that aren't exactly how they'd prefer to hear it.
> Taking your ball and going home isn’t necessarily the right path.
Yes. For example, if a manager is offended by how one of their employees raised a disagreement, criticizing that employee isn't necessarily be the right path. A better path might be for the manager to swallow their ego and listen to the concerns that are being raised.
> People are people and you need to play to their needs.
Yes. For example, less-powerful people are people, and more-powerful people need to play to their needs in order for the team to operate in the most healthy way.
To put it a different way: In healthy organizations, people with more power are expected to have better interpersonal skills, and to work well with less-powerful people who have merely average interpersonal skills. But in some organizations, powerful people are egotistic and less-powerful people are expected to work around their egos. These organizations don't function as well; average employees often don't have the special interpersonal skills necessary to work around a boss's ego, and so e.g. good ideas get lost because the boss doesn't want to hear them. If you're unfortunate enough to be an employee in one of those organizations, then the skills in this article are certainly valuable to know. But if you're a person with the power to influence the culture of an organization, you should avoid creating that kind of culture.
On average. No reason that everyone can't have great interpersonal skills though - they're really useful in a professional and personal context. The techniques to influence someone from a position of weakness are exactly the ones for personal relationships too because they are gentle and work well over the long term.
That being said, I think this HBR article is questionable advice. This is a random list of tactics that won't work without some sort of framework to link them strategically. The important thing is relation management, not how one disagreement plays out.
It's a steep pyramid and one of the hardest things for people to do is put their concerns in context.
People tend to both under and overestimate the proportionality of their issue.
People in power may be better communicators but they are generally much more busy having to contend with this stuff.
If the advice is useful then the egotism and dysfunction are already normalized and your conflicted reaction is more about justifying denial than anything productive.
The people that already agree with this don’t need to hear it, and the people that don’t will never listen if you try to tell them (that enormous ego).
I've worked more and more with non-technical teams, where the end of the goal of the work is not as clear cut. On those teams, people speak up less and authority by title is a lot more important. I think this is because there is not necessarily a right or wrong approach to a lot of the things they work on (or at least they don't see it that way) so arguments are less logical and feel more like ego trips or power struggles.
This may not be 100% accurate, but my main point is that technical people probably don't have a clear picture of this power struggle scenario from the pov of non-technical people. It's just a very different work environment.
Take recruitment, for example: if the candidate has the required degrees, experience and skills, recruiters or companies don't need to go through loads of interviews, tests, forms to fill, and so on. Candidates don't need to play guess games, find out what exact word or sysnonym they're expected to say/write, resort to sacrifice to the gods /s, etc.
Yet that's where we are right now.
You want to use Redis as our primary db? Great idea, boss. You think tests violate DRY and you don't want me to write any? Sir, you're a genius.
Edit: Maybe there isn't actually.
If its just a negative for the business but no impact on me I'll point out the issues but wont go any further than that.
Woah, you have?? Odd -- software engineers, anyway, are literally paid to think.
I've never heard anything remotely like that, but if I did, I'm sure I'd start looking for a new place to work. That would be a clear sign that I'm not a good fit in that company.
Failure is a great tool for learning. How bad will these foot injuries be, given that we'll probably only have two chances to _really_ learn something?
The problem is some leadership truly wants to touch the hot stove, and eventually if you keep saying "don't touch the hot stove".. you're the "doesn't let me touch the stove guy".
So sometimes you have to let people touch the hot stove.. as a treat.
This is it really. You can't have responsibility without control over the things you are responsible for. People both below you and above you have to accept that. And "real" responsibility comes only from bearing liability for bad outcomes. Even if formal organizational lines prescribe differently, this is where the real boundaries will lie and to the extent there is any discrepancy it will manifest as organizational dysfunction.
I think its a key thing for junior staff who want more autonomy to realize. If you really do want to influence decisions your first step on that pathway should be to pay it forward on commitment and responsibility front. If you don't want to take responsibility its fine, but realize it puts a fundamental limit on your autonomy.
The right boss will keep their ego in check and ask: “what do you think? Do have any reservations?” It is also desirable to argue about something: back and forth “but what about this”.
But you will need to find boss and place like that. Not very common
Also, besides being the one to suffer the implementation of a terrible decision, you will most certainly be blamed for when things eventually blow up farther down the line.
Outside of the tech hot areas, OP’s advice is the only one that will get you a salary.
Meh, personal attack and you know nothing about me.
And the situation where you have to put up with a totalitarian boss because there are no other jobs in your area is so incredibly specific to whatever location you had in mind as an example—you still shouldn’t give it out as general career advice. Saying yes to everything is objectively terrible advice if you want to start a company or work in one where you make great, innovative, and highly valuable products, because that kind of output requires _thinking_ and disagreement occurs when free thought is allowed.
Which just happened again.
For someone who values free thinking and disagreement, you are having a lot of difficulty handling both at the moment.
My approach is to explain first, and do it my way anyway in case of hard disagreement. If boss disagrees with that what’s he gonna do? Do the job himself? Maybe he’s the boss but I’m in charge of the code base and architecture.
Plus I get to see the downsides of another crappy approach and in the end I learn even more than doing things tHe RiGhT wAy.
Your assumption presumes just as much with similar effects.
I’ve never had the issues, as the prototypical HN poster demographic, and agree that the GP (?) post works for me, but fundamentally understand it’s also a strategy that can disproportionately lead to seriously bad outcomes for people in particular demographics.
The year is only an argument on 90s daytime talk shows.
> If someone needs psychological safety before they are disagreed to, I say they need psychological help.
What if somebody needs safety safety, because the person they're disagreeing with is more powerful than they are? Any "psychological" safety you're seeing here is people trying to muster up enough bravery to take a real risk for the possibly dubious reward of being right.
I'm not even making any moral judgements here. There are plenty of contexts where if you're going to act out on your disagreements with me, I'd prefer to find somebody either more tactical or more pliable to take your place.
> The year is only an argument on 90s daytime talk shows.
I'm not sure why you think it's an argument. When someone makes a statement, it's not automatically an argument.
In this case, that statement is a call to action. Take note that decades have passed and the culture has changed, which was articulated in the previous sentence.
Like you, I agree that no special treatment should be given to people in a position of power. However, I see many of these things as sets of tools I can use to be more persuasive and likely to be heard by anyone I'm trying to discuss a difficult topic with.
However, reality teaches us that there is no one size fits all solution for dealing with people regardless of the lower structure.
In a professional setting the key is to remain, well, professional. Even in that vein though you have to know the person and how you're perceived before taking on aome subjects. I've had some senior leadership where a suggestion from me was all it took to change course. I've had others that refused to accept 6 degrees for proof unless it was vetted through the right mgt chain. By that time all credit can be properly dispersed.
I found the article very helpful for communicating both up and down the power spectrum.
I had a direct report that desperately wanted to use Tailwind even though we already had a library of styled components already built without it. It took everything I had to keep the conversation positive while still disagreeing with him. Developers, in particular, can be divas and these tools are just as necessary in managing up as well as down.
I think the point where this was mentioned feels like the author was looking for an excuse to use the current buzzwords. And I don't think it really fits.
It's a feature of the environment whether and to what degree "permission to speak freely" is a thing or not. Nothing to do with psychological safety at all.
(Not that psychological safety is a good concept; the discussion I see is all about perception of being safe to disagree, which is very much putting the cart before the horse of whether or not there are actual repercussions for disagreeing.)
Adults re overrated.
Adults are mostly small children in larger bodies. Adults will sulk, throw tantrums, be petty, feel slighted, want to always be right, want to dominate etc.
It is adults that kill, rape, maim, hurt kids, start wars, torture etc.
Don't waste his/her time. If you can do this, you've already cut out pretty much every unnecessary fumble.
In all organisations there is politics (literally the combination of people) and those people matter. One can disagree while maintaining respect.
For example I once lobbied a supplier on behalf of a group of customers. The supplier agreed to our terms, but then presented _what we asked for_ in such an appaling disrespectful way that the group almost rejected it. It took a lot of work for me to convince them to look past the presentation to the actual content.
Personally I've had subordinates suggest things in useful, and less useful ways. I've had new hires come in, be with us a short time, and then proclaim (to anyone who will listen) that we're morons for not doing x or using y etc.
I've had others come and have a private conversation and ask about the reasons for not doing x, ot using y. Suggesting perhaps that it would be a step forward if we did etc.
New people bring value into our company. But sometimes they don't always yet have the full picture. We encourage feedback, but feedback presented in a respectful and constructive voice leads to more consideration than the opposite, regardless of the merits of the feedback.
Yes, all people deserve respect and dignity. And certainly it's on bosses to set a model for that (and I agree, not all do) - but it's certainly valuable for juniors to understand that commincating well "upstream" is key to getting change done.
And yes, there are places which will penalise you for feedback, no matter how well communicated. And that sucks. Such is life.
A lot of disagreements are arbitrary, emotional, lacking context, moreover, in any organization of human beings, public disagreements can amount to populism, narratives which doesn't help team cohesion. Depending on the issue of course.
To the extent that people are there to do their jobs and manage others, there's legitimacy in that authority, which comes with generally a wider and at least different purview.
Being a good player means respecting that reality.
The advice in the article is decent in helping people untie a bit of common issues from gripes, lack of perspective etc. and I would add strongly that one should probably take the disagreement in 'private' and not make it a public ordeal.
Most managers, when approached reasonably, will be good with at least the point of contention, if not resolving to the best outcome.
I wish everyone had the opportunity to manage others, and do so at least 2 layers up - it's an alternative universe up there and it's really, really hard. I think 'Director' is probably the hardest job in the company in many ways.
The calculus for most things is just different. Optimization in every corner is usually not the objective, and strategic issues start to enter in the decision making in a material way.
With that experience, people would be able to put things in context a lot better, which is a big challenge actually for front line people who often over or under appreciate the magnitude of the issue they're dealing with.
Then, approaching the 'disagreement' comes from a different perspective.
For most of my career, I would have said I wouldn't want to have my manager's job, it's just way too much fuss. Not only that, my experience in management has fundamentally changed how I hire people - 'getting along' in grey situations, where nobody is ever really going to always get their way, people are smart and passionate etc. is hard (for most) and a valuable skill. And personalities are different as well, some people are 'disagreeable' but that doesn't even mean they are 'disagreeing' with you even when it seems like they are! Figuring out how to do it while getting along is 1/2 the job.
The article makes a couple excellent points: 1) assure the listener that you both seek the same goal, 2) provide a solution, not just more problems.
Negativity alone is poison. If you don't have better ideas to replace the ones you shoot down, say nothing. Nobody likes troublemakers.
It also took me much too long to realize that most people enjoy debate far less than I do, especially those who need to act ASAP, like bosses.
It's similar to people who claim that they "tell it like it is". We understand what it means in practice and what sort of personality type to expect.
I once spent six months disagreeing with my own customer about the validity of a planning and the ability of our suppliers to hit the deadlines they were announcing. People were very happy I had insisted on contingency plans when it became obvious the project was indeed going to be late.
It's really not that difficult to show the right amount of candor while being objective about the disagreement.
This doesn't have to be a game of chess where you overanalyze your every move. People will respect the fact you said something that might be the elephant in the room anyway.
The challenge is that these articles assume that you're working with vindictive egotists, and there's plenty of those in corporate America.
I don't have a naturally high EQ, I have to exercise it and constantly reflect. I'm middle-aged (I worked solo in my first career).
If I can reach 40 and still be learning social skills, maybe others here also could get better at:
> It's really not that difficult to show the right amount of candor while being objective
In North America it is generally quite low, and most managers become acutely sensitive to manipulative/sycophantic antics unless completely blinded by narcissism.
It also ties into management styles, and how staff treat each other. Generally, if people are jerks it is a defensive mechanism masking an insecurity about their role at a firm. Personally, I preferred the competent and bluntly honest over someone acting agreeable.. telling people what they think they need to hear.
My advice, Manage or be Managed by amateurs. Eventually someone needs to take fiscal responsibility, and bring down the hammer on liabilities.
This is why most CEOs I knew became rather prickly personalities after a few years if they liaised in managerial roles.
I've also realized I should avoid any extraordinary efforts to "cover my ass" against abusive leaders. If they're going to be abusive, I don't need an ironclad defense to rub their noses in, I just need to get out. And I need not feel ashamed of not having that ironclad defense nor of reacting poorly to their aggression; like anyone abused by those in a position of power, I'm not at fault and need not be ashamed. Decent people will accept "we talked about this last month and you said..." just as well as they'll accept a written paper trail. This isn't to say never document things, but don't do it as a crutch for bad leaders; don't obsess about it, you shouldn't have to use it as a coping mechanism.
I always liked the meeting style where folks voice their opinions in ascending order of seniority. Someone told me this comes from Japan. I can’t confirm the origin but it’s certainly a neat way of defusing automatic deference to a senior voice.
By default, they should make it super easy for anyone to disagree. Beyond that they should make it so there are very few instances where there needs to be a discussion like that. Because they have properly delegated authority and trust to teams to get stuff done.
When the powerful person things the team has done it wrong, ideally, they should pop in and say, "let me understand what you are doing and why". In other words: the powerful person should adopt the role of the humble person, following the advice of that article.
In this way you won't kill good ideas, you won't kill important whistle blows (of the "this would lead to a fuckup" type, as well as the "this is illegal" type), and frustrated good people won't silent quit or loud quit.
I care about technical issues. Too much probably. I tend to be _that guy_.
So my emotional investment comes out in my tone.
My team lead then gets invested himself. At that point, the technical issue is just a firm, what's happening really is an emotional battle to dominate the frame. It's a zero-sum game.
What I do now: make the pitch of my voice go down at the end of sentences, not up. This makes me sound detached; bored, even.
Not only does this take away the emotional element, I find that the team lead mirrors me. His tone starts dropping, too.
At that point we aren't butting heads; we're side by side, looking at the issue.
I wonder how much of our interpersonal conflict has been me speaking in a high emotional key and dragging the discourse to a heightened emotional state.
if you’re open to it ;) imo we do a terrible job of training managers to be leaders instead of “bosses”. we have an absurd view of leadership equating to a person’s value being higher.
it’s not. when you work in management you have a role to perform, but if you have a culture that has to work to assuage you in order to disagree with you then you should probably find a different job.
Ask HN: How to disagree with someone more powerful than you - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17834068 - Aug 2018 (7 comments)
There are quite a few good ideas in tfa. The power deference is frustrating, but it's also a reality with groups of humans. In the end, you can build up your own forms of informal power and social capital if you deal with this kind of situation pragmatically. As a result you can become someone people will trust to discuss ideas effectively.
The way I read it, it's not about asking permission, per se, it's about setting expectations. "Head's up, I'm about to disagree with you." Also by giving them this ability to "opt in" to the disagreement, you're creating a relationship based on trust. In other words, they're hearing you respectfully express your thoughts and feelings, and that makes them _more_ likely to listen to you in the future, versus just barging in with your thoughts unannounced. (Contrariwise, if they say "no" too many times, then they don't trust you or your opinions -- and that's information for you to do what you wish!)
And sometimes? Your boss doesn't want you to disagree, they just want you to execute, saving both of you the time and energy of arguing.
You may still disagree, and you may not like their decision to just execute, but at the end of the day, they're the boss and you aren't. You're free to get another job!
As a leader in my company, I welcome disagreement early on. But at some point, we have to execute and we can't get stuck in a stalemate because I want A and you want B. Someone has to make a decision, and as the superior, that responsibility lies with me (or in some contexts, it lies with my superior, even if I disagree!).
(P.S. You are allowed to disagree with your parents, too!)
It also depends on what you're disagreeing about and whether your manager has enough of a pull to get it changed.
Usually rank and file employees are barred from expressing opinions about strategy at all. Permission or not, you will get ignored. The best you may get is more work as an experiment, with little reward and low chances of success.
I accidentally stumbled on the permission to disagree when arguing with my partner. We both do it now. Sometimes people aren't in the mood to argue/debate. When you ask permission, if they say yes, they usually keep their emotions in check. If they say no, you save the battle for another day.
It's a great way to build respect.
Instead of brown nosing, just disagree.
If you ask permission to disagree, you don't tend to get respect. You become seen as a fucking doormat.
Just speak plainly and clearly.
Me, speaking plainly and clearly, Yes
Child: is the macaroni statue I made of you pretty?
Me, speaking plainly and clearly, no, it's hoorendous
Me: Only when compared to this stunning macaroni statue.
I prefer to dodge answers and let others argue it out
Yes you look fat, and incredibly sexy.
No, it’s not pretty, but I love that you’ve made a statue of me.
Of course I gave up contributing ideas very quickly.
If some is arguing, and they are more powerful, they can "work through" argumentation faster than you. Therefore someone who is more powerful than you can argue faster and more effectively.
If you wish to disagree you must be both demonstrably correct and able to provide the work.
"Here's one I prepared earlier" is most effective as long as the preparation is demonstrably correct.
Take your time, make sure you know how to argue all aspects clearly and fully, and be patient. The powerful, such as they are, tend to be impatient.
The wise let others work, both separately and together, and build on all available agreement.
This is absolutely not the definition of power. Perhaps it should be, but in the real world there is only a tenuous correlation between competence and power.
When a person has attained power, they are often less compelled to provide sound argumentation for a perspective or solution. This can be expedient, assuming competence, but it can also lead to anything from wasted resources to the downfall of empires.
Rather than placing the onus on those with less power, I'd say those with more power should remain humble and open to new perspectives, and impatience should be taken as a signal to guide those with less power, experience, and/or skill.
This only makes sense if you’re talking about the physics equation P=W/t
In stereoscopic reality, it's the ability to do what you will. Will. Will to power.
For good or evil, it's up to you. You need power to do good, in fact more power generally.
Why does it take more power to do good than evil?
Does dimensional analysis apply?
It was that they simply ignored them.
I met so many C-level people who simply have the assumption they're always right. Either that or they they don't care at all.
Public arguments can be perceived as a threat to power even if the disagreement is fully benign on both sides, it's hard to argue in the commons.
Better to do it in private.
More often than not, tow the company/managers line in public.
It's really, really hard to manage and having dissent which could appear to be arbitrary (even if it's not) is hard.
In other words, 'in the commons' it's populism, 'in private' it can be authentic, so take it to the office.
> Ask permission to disagree
Maybe it's just poorly worded, but this seems too subordinate and gives off a parent-child power dynamic.
When you are subordinate to the other party in the conversation and they view the situation through parent-child power dynamic applies, which is common in many business environments, this is good advice.
Ask questions.
That's it. Turns out, either you're wrong, and the answers to the questions will make you ralise this, or they're wrong, and them answering the questions will guide them to the mistake.
Telling someone, even respectfully, that they're wrong can kick off defense mechanisms, no matter how experienced they are.
It never occurred to me to treat those higher up the org chart any differently than anyone else.
If that gets you in trouble and you have to leave the place, rest assured that you'll find a place where your traits are appreciated and your work life will be 1,000 times better.
Unless of course you're stubborn, that does have its benefits sometimes!
Also a lot of comments are coming at this from a boss -> employee role, but it also applies from a lesser known person on social media -> more influential person on social media too. Being honest and straightforward does not work there most of the time and leads to a lot of misunderstanding!
There's no definition of this, this is more of that don't be a dick stuff. What constitutes being a dick or an ass hinges on culture. If you're the new guy and everybody else is experienced and has worked with each other for a while, being an ass might mean opening your mouth at all. Whether you're right or not.
> rest assured that you'll find a place where your traits are appreciated
A lot of people don't appreciate the trait of pride in lacking social skills and tact or lack of awareness of one's surroundings or not understanding power structures. They'd have to worry about you saying something dumb to a client (even if you were right.)
LOL, projecting too much I guess? I never implied any of that.
>What constitutes being a dick or an ass hinges on culture.
Nah. Or are you talking about circumstances like "I didn't knew that a handshake was offensive in this remote village"? Those things are extremely rare in business contexts, and even when they happen both parties usually laugh it off, as they both understand that the intent was not to offend.
"Don't be a dick" is hard to describe, as you cannot put a 500-page book with all the specific situations written literally, which is the kind of thing that will please people like you. But, at the same time, every single person that's at least 12 years old have a sense of "this is right" vs. "this is not right". Don't lie, don't steal, there's a place for everything, if something ain't yours don't touch, I don't know, that sort of thing.
If you don't get those things, or pretend not to get them because of some weird and extremely particular circumstances that you have to make up to justify it, well ... let's not work together then :).
Some companies are more tolerant of input and advice, others unfortunately are less so. It is not uncommon to find a workplace where the boss will tag you as a 'dick' if you 'argue too much', and blackball you, even if you asserted it politely and reasonably.
I've had to come to the same conclusion recently and am better off for it, as you say.
For most people there is no such rest assured and it's important to remember that.
But there's one space where no trained skill seems to work: politics.
I just avoid at all costs discussing politics with friends and family, because it simple leads to nowhere. Older people usually likes to stay in a position of power in those dicussions like "they know much more than us", so in the end I just stay quiet and "agree" because in the current state of things, people feel so much harmed by words that its better this way.
I doubt most folks who talk about politics really "want" to, as much as they feel a responsibility or need to do so out of compassion or even desperation. Nearly everyone would prefer if we all could just get along, but we don't get along, and pretending we do seems like a great way to just allow the majority to steamroll the minority.
Again, I'm speaking about people (family/friends) that I know their background and I know that it is a huge waste of time trying to argue against their biased POV of "good old days of dictatorship". I'm talking about people that don't care about the oppressed.
But if you don’t already know the person’s views, it seems unwise to assume that “old person = supports the old regime,” since this will result in you missing opportunities to connect with potential allies.
Even as they metaphorically step on the throats of the people you care about?
The actually-oppressed stay in hiding. Whether they're gay in 1945 or Russian dissidents today, or political dissidents in today's western overculture, "eschewing discussion of political topics" is a mandatory survival strategy. I can relate because I am in this position - having to pretend I'm something I'm not on a daily basis in almost all contexts.
Someone who feels they can afford to speak politically on things others won't like must be in a pretty powerful position.
What do you think that person looks like to someone who knows they have to keep their mouth shut to not have their life ruined?
Having the right to even talk about your issues is an important and oft-overlooked privilege.
I hope you realize the comment you just wrote suggests that the oppressed should stay in hiding...
In my experience both tend to be wrong more often than not. Neither wants to listen to the other for the reasons above and then fail to benefit from the others experience.
I really enjoy talking about politics. I noticed, that I often can find common ground with almost everybody. I got used to be forced to search for common ground to have any conversation at all. This is because I disagree with most people I talk to on even the most basic stuff. It started when I was about age 17 or so. Mainly because I started reading stuff and thinking about it myself. Prior to this I had no opinion at all.
Also having changed my own opinion on major things helps me a lot. I haven't changed my principles by the way. I just noticed I was wrong about some "hot topics". So that actually helped me a lot to understand I might be wrong, and I think people feel this when I talk. I still have strong opinions. I simply understand I might be wrong and express this. And always try to understand better. Basicall, I feel like I know nothing, but then I notice I often understand more than a lot of people. Which I think is something quite easy to achieve by simply don't caring much about who is right or wrong and talking to everybody. Just assuming all people involved in conflicts are human and trying to understand even 'the bad actors' whoever I believe them to be.
Another funny thing is I often get along better with people from the opposite political spectrum. Because then it's clear we deeply disagree. So there is no point in trying to convincing each other. This makes talking about hot stuff a lot easier. People from the same political spectrum often care to much about small differences to have a meaningfull discussion.
Also through talking to family and friends I notice how much in general personality is mixed with political opinion. I think I can draw the lines because I see the paths they take in their live and the mistakes they repeat over and over again over time periods of many years. I don't think this is obvious enough to see with strangers. At least I wouldn't have without the close relationship. That also makes me humble. Sometimes I notice how my political opinions reflect my own personality, but I think this is hard to do on my own. That's another reason to talk to family and friends about politics.
I feel if one manages to destroy relations then one is doing something wrong. On the other hand, I also noticed some people are kinda sensitive and take things personally. Especially, when talking about some hot topics like ongoing hot or cold wars or alledged or real occupations. So I try to be carefull. Mainly by immediately feeling for boundaries. How far can I go? I mean it is quite easy to say "Ok, maybe I don't know/understad enough. What do you say to this?" Mostly, I am genuinly curious. Sometimes I just feel the duty to offer an honest conversation.
* They only have some of the information, and don’t account for that fact.
* Their goals aren’t the same as a leader’s goals.
* The leader has ownership of the larger outcome, and may want to make tradeoffs that are suboptimal for an individual person or team, but may ultimately be good for the overall outcome.
* Being technically correct isn’t a “trump” card, it doesn’t mean everything.
If I were a better writer I’d explain this better, but often you can tell who is used to thinking at a high level and who is used to hammering out details, based on these kind of conversations. Either you recognize your visibility and responsibility or you don’t.
I always look at it as if it is my job to disagree and let anyone know about it who needs to know. In a polite and diplomaitic way, the same as any other conversation.
Not voicing one's thoughts can have a dire effect on a business, a division, a group, and/or an individual.
We are all there to voice our disagreements, it's why we are hired in the first place.
I have never had a boss who didn't want my disagreement, my questions, my thoughts. Not once. I've had a lot of jobs. I guess it isn't impossible to have a boss like that, but I think it would be fairly rare. If it did happen to me, I'd figure it out, and then start applying for new jobs, if it was reasonable and possible. If not, then I'd just STFU and keep my head down.
But, I guess this article is for people who don't feel comfortable with being assertive, but then, to me, that means someone is not assertive in everything, including asking for a raise. In this case, you should honestly go to a therapist who specializes in assertiveness training. Truly. It would be a fantastic investment.
Both men and women should be assertive. Both men and women have problems with assertiveness. And I don't mean to sound sexist, but especially women have problems with this. I personally think that is maybe 60% why women get paid less than men, because men are on a whole more aggressive. Not all, but statistically. I don't have published statistics on this, but I do have a ton of anecdotal stories that indicate at least to me that's the case. I've known extremely assertive women and they make as much money and more than men, and I've known women who are not assertive and miss out on raises. Again, it is the same with men, but I think it's more with women that are like this, for a lot of reasons.
One anecdotal story - I was hired the exact same day as a woman who was better than me at the job, I knew this factually from day 1. No doubt. The hiring guy, the owner, said that after 30 days, he would re-evaluate and if he like our performance, would increase salary. On day 30, I was in front of his desk, and he doubled my pay rate. From $60 to $120 per hour. Not bad. 6 months later, this same woman comes up to me and says, "Did you get a raise? How much?" So I said yes, I asked 30 days after he said to ask, didn't you???" She said no. So that means I was paid 100% more than a woman that was way more qualified than I.
To me, that is her fault that she didn't get paid as much as me, a less qualified man. It would be another man's fault, too, if he didn't ask for the raise. She's a fucking grown-ass woman, am I supposed to do everything for her, double-check all her work and her everything? Is the boss? And, I'm sure as there are stars in the sky, if I did, she or some other woman would come at me with the whole "patronizing" and "mansplaining" stuff if I asked stuff like that..."Oh, you don't think women can do what men do? SEXISM." I KNOW there are some other women who would be there on day 30. But I think most women, and a lot, lot, lot of men just to be rewarded for their work without asking, that the bosses should just pay them more and see their contributions. This is what a child does, they expect mommy and daddy to give them things without asking.
I think that "equal pay for equal work" is not entirely accurate. Sure, some is, maybe 5-10%. But I think the real saying should be "equal pay for equal assertiveness and aggressiveness." It is a fact everywhere I've been - Assertive people make more money. "Equal pay for equal work" is so passive and dependent, like an infant. Man up. Woman up. Open your mouth.
I hope no one sees this as "mansplaining" or "sexist". I WANT women, and men, to get paid their full value by being politely and diplomatically assertive in all areas of life, not just work or income.
I'm writing all of this, because maybe you all (women and men) are much younger than I am and you have never really thought of this in depth. Maybe you have thought about it a little but no one has ever been straight up with you.
So go to a therapist for assertiveness training, if you have problems with being assertive. It's probably the best money and time you'll ever spend.
Also, you can read articles about assertiveness training https://www.google.com/search?q=assertiveness+skills
You can also watch videos https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=assertiveness+s...
And use a therapist.
Do all these things, learn from multiple sources.