> The right thing to do in this situation is to acknowledge that you see the situation the same way they do, but do it privately, within your immediate team only or in 1-1s. "Yeah, this new policy sucks, [...]

If you're a manager in a company that does sucky things, does (inevitably) being quoted saying a policy 'sucks' risk you losing your manager job there?

I'm an OG techie, who ends up doing some manager-y things, and I'm going to be very straightforward with everyone. But on something like sucky policy, I might not say "sucks".

Instead, maybe acknowledge they're concerned/upset, ask questions about how it affects, ask/discuss how that can be fixed/improved, and honestly say some of what I will try to do about it.

Example of last part: "Thank you, I'm going to escalate this, and I plan to get back to you within the next 2 days. If anything comes up before then, let me know."

▲

jdefr89 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Your employees won’t rat you out… Just don’t say “sucky” to those above you. If I have a cool ass manager who looks out for me and is real (I’m lucky enough to be at a MIT lab where everyone is cool as hell), I will always have their back…

▲

neilv 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

If you're a manager, consider not saying that up the org chart is "sucky". Almost certainly no one on your team will go tattle, but it can leak out accidentally, such as when someone is flustered over a problem.

More likely, it will leak out indirectly, in a way, if your team starts thinking of itself a little too much as a group that has to stick together against hostile outsiders within the company, either up the chain or sideways. People outside the team will pick up on that's the tone you're promoting to the team.

But it's not just about not wanting impolitic words to come back to you...

For one thing, it's part of your job to help the team work with the company and people outside the team. Not promote a sense of hostile environment. (If there's an intractably hostile environment, then either that's getting fixed promptly, or your people should be escaping.)

A good manager should have the team's back, especially in a hostile corporate environment, but also insulate the team from a lot of noise including some of what they're being shielded from, as a team and individually. Just like personal life, if you care, you don't have to tell people all the things you do for them.

(I was fortunate to have some awesome managers, who knew when to shield and help me, who knew when to (on rare occasions) lower their voice and tell me something that a drone wouldn't, and who always came across as honest and caring. Some of it rubbed off of me despite my strong-minded personality, and I can always just ask myself what would Bill/Kathy/Nancy/Tom do, to name some of the earliest and most formative ones. All highly skilled engineers first, and later managers/mentors.)

▲

scyzoryk_xyz 3 days ago | parent [-]

Sucks this is being downvoted. Maturity is hard.

▲

Etheryte 3 days ago | parent [-]

Maturity can be many things, but complaining about internet brownie points is not one of them, at least as far as I'm concerned. People disagree with all kinds of things and that's fine, that comes with the territory of having an opinion.

	▲	scyzoryk_xyz 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		That's true - wasn't a complaint inasmuch as word of recognition. Parent was grayed out.

▲

pinkmuffinere 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think this is true 90% of the time, but that 10% of the time is really risky. The high stakes of the bad case make it wise (imo) to avoid saying your company's policy "sucks"

▲

zovirl 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Even in situations where this is true, there's almost certainly a better phrasing than "this new policy sucks," which only communicates an emotion. It is imprecise. Listeners will jump to their own conclusions about why you think it sucks.

You can acknowledge the problems more directly: "I get it, we don't have enough chairs so Wednesday is likely to be a challenge." or "I know mandatory 9-5 is going to disrupt your commute."

A bonus of the more precise approach is you can follow up with "do you have other issues with the new policy that I may not know?"

▲

neilv 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh, MIT LL (from your HN bio) seems to be all about top serious engineering and science R&D.

Would you say it's probably a pretty different cultural environment than the established company and tech startup environments that most of HN works in?

▲

goles 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your balancing the relationship you have with leadership to do what you are asked to do, just as you ask IC to do things they may want to do, with doing the best you can to maintain or improve the QoL for your team.

The author is right, the correct stance is... > “Yeah, <s>this new policy sucks</s> I don't agree with 100% of all decisions, I get it. It’s going to affect me in negative ways too.”

Then critically thirdly,

> "Lets work together to demonstrate why the new policy is a risk to the customer."

Everybody drives on the same roads to the office, everybody has to wake up early, everyone has KPIs they are trying to hit.

To get what you want the compelling argument is to the customer.

Authors example, there aren't enough desks. We'll do it, but this is the level of support we can provide customers. This customers project is going to become at risk based on if we do this because of these reasons. We'll go in, but in order for us to deliver what we do at home we need to be accommodated to provide the same thing on time, I've done an estimate on what we'll need do you want me to expense it?

It's not about changes hurting you, the change hurting your team, it's how it's going to hurt the customer.

▲

nitwit005 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you're too careful about how you phrase things, it can backfire and seem dishonest. People will interpret it similar to "you call is important to us". Technically true perhaps, but intended to deflect.

	▲	neilv 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		You have to mean it, and you have to follow through on your words with actions. Otherwise, even if you are a good actor, to initially make people think you are being sincere, people will eventually realize you aren't being straight with them.

▲

sebstefan 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>does (inevitably) being quoted saying a policy 'sucks' risk you losing your manager job there?

It won't happen but even if it did the people above you understand the role & predicament of a middle manager...

	▲	neilv 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe. Many people would react very negatively to someone down the org chart from them contradicting them to those below. (Example: CEO says we're doing this thing because bold leadership. Manager tells their people is dumb or wrong. ICs openly grumble about CEO being a big jerky doody-head. CEO hears that and says WTF is this manager undermining bold leadership.)