[trashtester]

> If a manager comes over and suggests something to you, you need to understand their perspective for coming to that discussion

For someone having autism, this may be impossible. If they are open about their autism, one could argue that the manager should be the one trying to see the topic from two sides.

One may also need to come up with a shared understanding where the manager has a way to inform the autistic person more explicitly what to do than they would another person (who would get the subtle hints).

This can be pitched as a way for the company to accommodate for having an autistic person on the team (as opposed to firing or not hiring them), in other words that the manager would do this as a way to support the employee, not to be abusive.

[engineeringwoke]

What I've seen is that engineering departments tend to be engineers all the way down, so you often end up in a situation where the roles are reversed: the IC is neurotypical and the manager is autistic (especially asperger's).

And then, there is a lot of difficulty for the non-neurotypical to see anything beyond their "literal place on the totem pole", or their title. They lean on their experience to say what is right or wrong, even though they have far less context and the IC is trying not to ruffle feathers or hurt people's feelings.

[trashtester]

Autism and related disorders may in some (possibly most cases) be factors that turn an otherwise good employee into an incompetent manager. This would be one of many factors that a company might want to take into account when promoting to or hiring managers.

If someone is hired into a manager position they cannot perform well for such reasons, a healthy organization should either modify their role or let them find another job.

People with such conditions MAY also be able to learn about their own limitations, and avoid seeing such positions in the first place.

Then there are those who can be quite successful as managers, despite such challenges, either due to side-effects of their systems-oriented thinking or for unrelated reasons. Such people may be difficult to be around, and may require some quite robust people as direct reports, but if the value they generate is sufficient, it may still be good for the company.

[JackFr]

I’m all for accommodating disability.

But in this case an obvious solution might be to do what your manager suggests simply because he is your manager.

As a non-autistic person I don’t find it difficult to voice my concerns about a particular course of action and then do it anyway if that’s what the boss wants. (I realize the sticking point is “voice my concerns” — doing that in a manner that doesn’t come off as confrontational or undermining can be hard.)

[nibbleshifter]

> But in this case an obvious solution might be to do what your manager suggests simply because he is your manager

That is career suicide (unless you make sure to get it in writing every single time).

As a knowledge worker you are paid to not just be a yes man automaton, you are paid to evaluate and push back as needed.

[JackFr]

> That is career suicide (unless you make sure to get it in writing every single time).

Why would you ever expect your managers to trust us if you don't trust them?

[nibbleshifter]

Managers often make poorly planned out technical decisions that are in the best interest of their career, but not the business.

Like changing a framework for an already fully working product, just to have done it.

You don't want to end up holding the bag for that choice when they claim you said it would work when it invariably overruns.

[shlant]

> But in this case an obvious solution might be to do what your manager suggests simply because he is your manager.

I hope more Autistic and non-Autistic people don't put up with this kind of argument. I'm sure most people have an example of a manager making a technical decision (many times due to ego) and being wrong and then the engineering team has to clean up the mess. There should at least be room for discussion which in the example given, the manager does not seem to be interested in.

[JackFr]

> I'm sure most people have an example of a manager making a technical decision (many times due to ego) and being wrong

I'm sure most people have an example of making a technical decision (many times due to ego) and being wrong

[shlant]

the purpose of me making that point was "therefor, a manager shutting down discussion is not something that should just be accepted" not "managers are the only ones who are wrong"

[denton-scratch]

> I realize the sticking point is “voice my concerns”

But in an interaction between an engineer and a manager, anything less than voicing your concerns is an abdication of responsibility. If the manager switches off at the first expression of concern from an engineer, then I imagine that's a team that's bound to failure.

Jump ship.

[JackFr]

No one says the manager switches off. They may have a host of reasons, possibly non-technical, why they don't agree with you. It's certainly fair to ask what they, but the point is it's not a debating society. There needs to be some amount of trust that a manager is operating in good faith, on a rational basis, and while perhaps not an expert some degree of competence in the area.

[denton-scratch]

How can they not agree with you, if all you've done is ask one question (with three more questions left unasked)?