[Gareth321]

In your scenario your manager appears to be your adversary and not your manager. Those comments are what I would expect from a stakeholder, but not a manager. Your manager should provide a unified front to business and senior management. You two should agree on the correct approach. If your manager doesn't believe that your team should build things correctly and minimise technical debt then he's a terrible manager and you should leave.

Your entire scenario would be moot if you practised scrum and estimated the work effort as a team. Your manager might get a vote, but that's it.

[RHSeeger]

> If your manager doesn't believe that your team should build things correctly and minimise technical debt then he's a terrible manager and you should leave.

If you or your manager believe that there is only one "correct" option and that technical debt should always be minimized (vs being balanced against other factors), then odds are you're bother either terrible or very naive. In almost every moderately sized piece of work, there are multiple options and there's a choice of which one to take based on various priorities (ie, the best option varies depending on multiple factors).

[Gareth321]

While true, this doesn't change the premise. Both parties should agree on the "correct" approach in the context of this discussion: minimising technical debt.

[selfhoster11]

Your manager is always potentially your adversary: after all, they can fire you if they are unhappy with what they are seeing.

Not to mention that some managers simply are adversarial, period. When you apply to a company, you can rarely choose your manager, and sometimes cannot work under a different manager without leaving the company entirely.

[Gareth321]

I've had adversarial managers in the past. Unsurprisingly, the team underperformed and the culture was terrible, so I left. I don't agree that one's manager should be one's adversary. I've worked with many managers who work with me instead of against me. This is a crucial difference.