[pickingdinner]

You are superior. Dancing around language does not make you less superior.

Just be the boss, be honest, and be kind.

Becoming friends or more than friends is cool, but if the manager can't remain professional, no one can.

If you have a wife and kids a lot becomes easier. You're not single/dating, you're serious about the bread you win, and you don't have any friends or time for them anymore anyway!

[jauntywundrkind]

It might be helpful to ask, in what ways is someone superior? Are you the superior master of code skills & technical decision making? Are you the superior master at unit testing?

If you are indeed superior across every dimension, you either have a bad team & should go work somewhere else, or you are clipping your teammates wings & obstructing their development.

Do you have a position of superiority in the org chart? In many companies, yes. But also: you are overhead. You are a resource there to keep the engineers doing the thing. They are the ones doing the actual task the company actually wants done, not you: you may be higher up the org chart, but you are actually playing a superior, not lead role.

[tjbiddle]

Superior, as a noun, quite literally is "Having higher rank"

If you're in management, you have the decision making power - and are the superior.

[pickingdinner]

Ya, when the manager is comfortable dictating and the staff is comfortable being dictated (use whatever term you like), you have a far simpler and efficient work environment. If you can relax and just trust your boss, then you can also trust that you have it easier, especially if they're good at their job. They might be having to deal with someone that just treats them like overhead, who was most likely not hired by them.

Good managers are also good with their boss, and likely a big part of how they were promoted to manager in the first place.

[smcin]

You can outrank people to whom your technical skills are inferior (or nonexistent). It depends entirely on the organization and its culture (is there some MBA glass ceiling? is there twin-track?) Most places aren't meritocracies, including the ones that claim to be. Conversely, technical skills may not matter above some ceiling. Again, depends entirely on the culture the organization chooses.

[pickingdinner]

Yes, superior rank and superior skill are completely separate. There is zero need to confuse the two.

In a meritocracy, you may expect the superior rank to be given to those with superior skill, but the skill isn't what gives them the power once they have the rank, and it's the skill to get the rank that gets the rank, not the skill of your job.

[P_I_Staker]

This is really dark and toxic:

1. You're not superior. In fact, there's a good chance you're inferior in many ways. You have become disconnected from the "doing" part of the job, and this introduces problems. Not saying one is more important or superior. We all have our blind spots.

2. Telling yourself you're superior is the quickest path to believing it. When think you're superior, people will start noticing. A tiny fraction of people can reliably hide their feelings in the long term, and this behavior is arguably shady also.

3. People don't do well feeling that superior people are lording over them. Equality and control over one's own life brings more job satisfaction, and it's also the right thing to do.

4. We all help set cultural standards. If you think you're superior, others will too. They might not respect the same boundaries as you. ie. you're superior, but your responsibility is to be fair, so you judge by actions and don't play favorites. I heard this argument made by a drill instructor. If I start slapping a recruit, someone could throw his head into a wall. What makes you think you can effectively protect against managers that express superiority through dominance and abuse? Why would any measures be better than a culture of equality.

5. Starting a family should be joyous, not about the end of your social life. The reason sacrifice needs to be made primarily stems from our unforgiving work culture. The fact that we have to choose between family, friends, hobbies and health/fitness to such an extent is an injustice.

6. In my experience single people are often the biggest workaholics. This is because most people with families realize it's in their best interest (personally and for the family) to not prioritize work over family. Meanwhile, single people tend to have lots of disposable time, and always a little frustrated with the people with family commitments. It can go either way, with the guys hiding from their wives, and working late in the office. I find this really sad.

I could probably go on, but I'll stop. I know this is pretty rude, but I think people who think this way need help. You might find yourself at a point in your life where you understand the value of friends, because your life is in shambles without them (same with family and career). It doesn't have to be that way, and we can work to improve these conditions.

P.S. Just an example for those of you that think you don't need friends, I remember an account from reddit. Guy married for years. After a few decade wifes decides she's gonna have sex with other people. No friends. The guy was crushed.

I see this happen all the time with family and career, too. It's fun to do that easy job, and you're happy with your social life? Good luck as you advance past your 30s, you can't "hang out" like you used to (nobody left without wife and kids), living paycheck to paycheck, very few opportunities, etc... around the same time you'll take a similar hit if you have no immediate family.

[pickingdinner]

I guess I should take personal offense by this?

You and jauntywundrkind are confusing the context of superior. The context is rank and power. As a manager and boss, you are of superior rank and power. The point being, stop dancing around that, especially in fear of comments by those who may take it out of context. So you're demonizing me based on your own context. Which is dark and toxic.

But this is important because it's so often the case. If you could choose the context, you could always see something as dark and toxic, or do the opposite. And if you do see something someway, check the context, and be sure it's considered.

To be professional is to never infer personal superiority. Superior skill, superior rank, superior attire maybe, or superior height even? None of these make anyone personally superior. Even superior character, mood, philosophy, empathy. Surely you can find something inferior if you wanted. But none of this is about the individual being inferior or superior. In fact, even at a personal level, who compares themselves with others in such a way? Who's scared to be compared? And who's after those who compare? Making it about that is the fasted path to dark and toxic.

So please don't.

All that is meant by superior here, is your superior can fire you, and you can't fire them. If this fact is damaging to your world view, I'd say your world view may need repairing.

But with a healthy understanding of the situation, if you wish to get promoted, go for it.

The end.

[P_I_Staker]

> As a manager and boss, you are of superior rank and power.

This is not universally accepted, and I don't necessarily agree. Definitely think this is a terrible way to word your point, even if you had a decent one.

> So you're demonizing me based on your own context. Which is dark and toxic.

No, I'm demonizing you for what you said. I don't know "your own context". I know what you said, and it sounded entitled and bigoted.

Some background: We constantly hear people say these things. We recognize the ideology that tends to go with these ideas and are rightly suspicious and critical.

I'm not going to try guess your best intention. You should use language that doesn't make me think you are an arrogant narcissist or a fascist. I'm not trying to insult you, but here I think it's important for clarity.

> So please don't.

No. I always will. Your comment was terrifying. This talk of "superiority" is a problem from the start.

> who compares themselves with others in such a way?

Lots of people. It's awful. Hence the purpose of my response.

> Who's scared to be compared?

Huh? I thought comparing is bad. Now being "scared" to be compared is bad?

> And who's after those who compare?

What?!?! Are you having some victim complex and saying people are out to get you? I have no idea what you're talking about here.

> All that is meant by superior here, is your superior can fire you, and you can't fire them. If this fact is damaging to your world view, I'd say your world view may need repairing.

Did you write this on a projector? BTW, your "superior" can't necessarily fire you, nor should they be able to any more than you can fire them. I don't think that many teams give a single person dictator powers to do this anymore.

So while it might be true that some manager has an easier time firing a less powerful employee, it doesn't have to be that way. In fact, in the real world managers often feel like they can't fire anyone, and sometimes employees do have recourse.

In fact, you're wrong, you can get your manager fired! It happens more often than you'd think.

[pickingdinner]

> This is not universally accepted,

Try saying that to your boss who does in fact outrank you.

> I'm demonizing you for what you said

Do you make it a habit? You ever consider misinterpretation or do you just blame the other person's wording?

My use of the word is not incorrect, and no I do not mean superior human being. If that is what I meant, I would have put human being after superior.

> I'm not going to try guess your best intention.

You should. Always. Please do.

> language that doesn't make me think

No one's language will make you think anything. Your thoughts are your own. Own them. Think about that. And if you've misidentified an arrogant narcissist or a fascist, that's on you.

> Lots of people. It's awful. Hence the purpose of my response.

Like you? And your purpose is what? To demonize me? Why?

> your "superior" can't necessarily fire you, nor should they be able to any more than you can fire them.

So here what needs repairing. Have you ever worked "under" someone? Or is that "beneath" you? Or is this language damaging?

Yes, they can fire you, and no you can't fire them. Trying to get them fired is not the same, and already you're admitting you can't do it directly. They can do it directly. You get to quit if you don't enjoy the work being served on your plate. That's all it is.

I apologize if I offended you. That was not my intent. You could have guessed that.

However, you are personally offensive, by your own admission. Demonizing people is offensive. And you continue to do so even after I've clarified my point.