Idk this take seems like a wildly one-sided approach in favor of the incompetent manager. Where is their giving in? Where is their improving to the situation? When I'm not performing, I get put on a PIP, if they are not performing, it suddenly becomes my job to help them save their ass? Am I missing something? This advice sounds like something a terrible first level manager would gaslight their direct reports into believing in order to get a free ride.

▲

AnimalMuppet 4 days ago | parent [-]

Well, you aren't in a position where you can put them on a PIP. Someone else can (and maybe should), but you can't.

So what are you going to do? Are you going to just grit your teeth in a lousy situation? Are you going to leave? Or are you, first, going to try to do what you can to fix it?

Trying to fix it first is, IMHO, the right thing, for several reasons. It's right morally. You're trying to do good to the people around you. It's right in pragmatic terms, too, because it may work, and if it doesn't, you can still leave. And it's right just in "leave your options open" terms, because it adds one to the list of options.

▲

s1mplicissimus 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Are you going to leave? Or are you, first, going to try to do what you can to fix it

Oh I'm very much in favor of making a reasonable attempt to fix the situation. Where we differ, I think, is what that reasonable approach is.

What parent suggests is akin to feeding your kids sweets to prevent them from throwing a tantrum. I'd go for 1) look for another position to cover for worst case 2) keep raising concerns in a professional way, but do as told, while documenting clearly who is responsible for the bad decision. 3) when speaking criticism about the manager to others, speak about the decision, not the person - let them figure out who's responsible by themselves. speak in terms the business people understand: retention rate, lost revenue, missed timelines, exploding budgets etc. - no bad manager ever got fired for "bad code" or "doing too much micromanaging"

> It's right morally. You're trying to do good to the people around you. It's right in pragmatic terms, too, because it may work, and if it doesn't, you can still leave.

Morals cannot prosper as a one way road though. "If you treat me as a resource, I'll treat you as a paycheck" is a proportionate response to this kind of situation. My higher-up is not at work to spread human values and love at the workplace, they are hired to make the business money. So am I. We both wouldn't be here but for the pay. They won't think twice to throw me under the bus if it helps them or the business. You talking about morals in the workplace seems like you never realized this circumstance.

tl;dr Imo the way to go in such a situation is either leave at the next opportunity or work to get rid of them (and be very careful not to endanger yourself in the process!)

	▲	AnimalMuppet 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, I know they'll throw me under the bus at the drop of a hat. I'll leave them, too, for something better (which can also happen if they become worse). It's just that, while I'm there, I'll try to do what's good for the people around me, even if what they're doing isn't good for me. I'm still aware of what's going on, and I won't take it forever. But if I can fix the boss (or help his manager fix him, or help him fix himself), then sure, I'll try. I'll even try at some risk of my own job (because if it doesn't work, I was going to be out the door anyway). The rest of what you said I agree with. That's about how I'd handle it.