[filosofo]

That's funny, because "subordinate" has replaced the previous generation's "inferior" as the commonly-used term for an employee down a step in the org chart.

However, to answer your question: if someone can determine whether you get to keep your job, whether you like it or not you are that person's subordinate.

[azanar]

However, to answer your question: if someone can determine whether you get to keep your job, whether you like it or not you are that person's subordinate.

It's interesting how two different perspectives on what is largely the same arrangement can yield such different answers.

By organization, if someone can fire you, you are their subordinate. By productivity, the "subordinate" is not necessarily subordinate at all. The working relationship may be much more than of peers, where the pair of them manage to both get things done, and keep people informed of what is going on. It might even be that the subordinate in the traditional sense is anything but in the tangible sense.

What sucks is that the traditional organizational arrangement has a very difficult time representing this. It mandates a strict hierarchical arrangement of staff, even if the staff themselves does not view themselves as hierarchical.

Because, in this arrangement, one person is usually granted the ability to terminate the employment of the other, there is necessarily an adversarial component to their relationship. Even if they work as peers, one has to report to a chain-of-command about the other.

For people and teams who don't need this sort of arrangement, having it imposed absolutely sucks. But, because it so entrenched in corporate tradition, it emerges anyway.

I rail against it as well.

There are people who don't need it, but those who don't need or want this arrangement get it anyway, regardless of the detriment it causes. I get the sense this happens simply because of the perspective that it must necessarily happen, because people have all these preconceived notions about management and subordination that they have a hard time letting go.

I think we'd lose the adversarial perspective if we lost the notions, and that would be a good thing.

[Retric]

Ok, I don't like that word, but it's hard to replace without being just as insulting. Granted I tend to use minion. As in he is he is my minion, or I will have my minions deal with that. However, IMO it's connotation does not remove the idea that they have a fair level of autonomy just that I give them direction.

[Tichy]

"if someone can determine whether you get to keep your job, whether you like it or not you are that person's subordinate."

Trying to get my head around this. What does "keeping one's job" even mean? isn't there still a mutual contract, and both parties can break out of it? So the boss can act on behalf of the company, and you can't. But presumably you can still quit the job on your own decision. Does that make the boss your subordinate?

It seems the boss has more leverage, as the worst you can do to him is quit, whereas he can fire you. But both parties can hurt each other.

I hope I'll never have to enter such an environment again.

[filosofo]

Trying to get my head around this. What does "keeping one's job" even mean? isn't there still a mutual contract, and both parties can break out of it? So the boss can act on behalf of the company, and you can't. But presumably you can still quit the job on your own decision. Does that make the boss your subordinate?

No, but I suppose it might imply that you could be your own subordinate. Since the boss can fire you, but you can't fire your boss, you have a subordinate relationship.

[joe_the_user]

Subordinate has been around for a while.

Inferior denotes one's class in society, subordinate denotes one's position in an organization.