[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.

[marssaxman]

Sounds like we actually agree on this, we are just emphasizing opposite ends of the scenario. Sorry to have claimed that you did not understand what I was talking about. I've had some painful life experience which leaves me a bit sensitive here.

[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.