[richardwhiuk]

Yeah, that was the bit that struck out for me. Fundamentally, an organization is impossible to manage if everyone thinks that they know best. If you argue to your line that you think that the company should do X (or more precisely, the company should pay you to do X), and lose, then you have three options:

a) Do it anyway. The company will judge you as incapable of being managed correctly and will leave you with no responsibility because you haven't displayed it.

b) Don't do it. Everyone will be happy. You may be right, but people won't care. If you want it done in the future, bring more evidence and suggest it again. Work out what people's objections are. Bring it up without implying everyone was stupid for not doing it in the first place.

c) Leave. If you really do know best, why aren't you running your own business?

[adekok]

> c) Leave. If you really do know best, why aren't you running your own business?

That's not a good answer. A person staffing an assembly line making widgets may know how to double through-put. They do not know how to sell widgets.

It's unreasonable to expect them to "start their own business" because they're competent at their job, which is probably one out of 100 jobs in the company.

As for (a) and (b), I also find those outcomes unsatisfactory.

There are people who manage to get promoted in corporate hierarchies precisely because they can solve problems. By your choices (a) and (b) above, doing anything is bad, and will result in bad outcomes.

[dragontamer]

Honestly, c) should read

c) Leave: there are plenty of good middle managers who protect you from toxic politics from above. Find one, and stick with them.

In fact, that is almost explicitly the job of a middle manager. They provide you (and the rest of the team) clear direction when upper-level politics get toxic, and weather the storm by providing a good "face" for your project. The middle manager worries about the politics while you the engineer work your ass so that the middle manager doesn't have to take a fall.

As I've stated in other posts in this topic, you don't necessarily have to leave the company. And its often very possible to find another manager close by who can be a positive influence on the team. It may take a few tries though...

[DannyBee]

"As for (a) and (b), I also find those outcomes unsatisfactory."

That's great. It's not your company :) Seriously.

It seems you don't want to accept that it's someone else's choice what work should be happening and that you don't want to start your own business so it can be your choice.

You want some magical third option where your intrinsic brilliance is magically recognized.

This will never happen, and surprise, the average person thinks they are above average :)

Everyone thinks they know better. That doesn't make them right, despite how much they really want to believe they understand everything. Maybe some of them do. But you can't help those who don't want to be helped, and you should just go where you are actually appreciated

[adekok]

> That's great. It's not your company :) Seriously.

No, what I meant was your explanation of the outcome is unsatisfactory. All of the outcomes you described are negative.

I don't believe that all choices result in negative outcomes. Companies succeed, and so do people inside of companies. Therefore, your description of the problem and/or outcomes is wrong.

[angersock]

So, I'll just put on my angry hat here, and say what a lot of us are probably thinking:

For b, life is too goddamned short to waste hours making other people feel like their fuckups weren't fuckups. Once you get the deep-in-your-bones acceptance that a company doesn't care what you're doing (as is clearly the case if the winning strategy isn't to, you know, do the optimal thing for the product), then it's a question of, "How I can exert minimum effort and get maximum return?".

That's fucking toxic.