[Negitivefrags]

This is the result of the "Us vs Them" mentality that so many developers have these days and boils down to a lack of trust.

If your CTO lacks context about your reality on the ground, then tell them the context. How else can they readjust what the priorities are? If you tell them and they refuse to adjust your priority then it's probably you that lacks context about what the goals actually are.

If you still disagree with that, then it's because you don't trust your CTO. If you don't trust your CTO then you should leave and find a better one.

If you have worked in a few places and have never trusted the CTO anywhere you have worked, perhaps you need to sit down and take a hard look at your yourself rather than others.

[fartcannon]

I think its the power dynamic. Not everyone can just leave jobs. If people don't trust their CTOs, bosses, CEOs, that is mostly the bosses fault and on them to fix. Requiring the person who can be at-will fired to also manage upwards is pretty much a fail state.

[malfist]

Not managing upwards is how you wind up in a fail state. Business, teamwork and employment isn't a zero sum game. Everyone is working together to achieve something. Helping your boss understand why something shouldn't be done/prioritized/cancelled is paramount to being efficient.

If you think you can never tell your boss no because you'll be fired, you're not going to have a good employment story.

[marssaxman]

It's the boss' responsibility to make it safe to say "no". You can't expect the more vulnerable party in the relationship to take the initial risk when there is a power imbalance.

[malfist]

If your stance is that the weaker party can take no risk because they're the weaker party then you'll always be a victim.

Work _with_ your boss, not against them. You have more agency than you realize.

[marssaxman]

Spoken with the cheerful idealism of a person who has always had a safety net.

My stance is that you cannot pretend the power dynamic does not exist. Boss can fire worker, worker cannot fire boss. Consquences of getting fired range from irritating to life-threatening, depending on worker's resources. Consequences of having to fire someone... not such a problem. You ignore that reality at your peril.

If the boss wants workers who can say "no", the boss has to create an environment where people don't have to fear the consequences of doing so.

[malfist]

There's a area between "power dynamic is everything and I can never say no" and "power dynamic does not exist and I can always say no" that I'm arguing from.

Power dynamics can't be ignored, but just because someone has the upper hand in that dynamic means you always have to be subservient and do everything they ask you to do. Always saying yes to a boss is probably a faster way to get fired than being a partner and pushing back when needed.

[fartcannon]

Its about how _much_ information you give your boss. And when. When the power balance is even, the flow of information can be, too. But given the relationship of employment, it can never be. So its still on the employers/the powerful.

If you give it away for free, theyre not going to voluntarily pay you.

[Aeolun]

There’s very few situations in which dropping a feature that was previously ‘highest priority’ midway through makes sense.

More likely, you finish up fighting the latest fire and someone will suddenly remember the thing that is now ‘very late and behind schedule’.