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.