[aftoprokrustes]

This is, fortunately, not my experience. In all of my jobs, the most highly regarded people, including by management, were/are those who have an informed opinion and are confident enough to voice it, and potentially take responsibilities outside of their job description in order to steer the business in the direction they are convinced is the right one. Note that this handful persons I am referring to _also_ accept criticism and correct their understanding when new information ia given to them: they are not dogmatic jerks. Actually, all my managers were this kind of person, with crazy ideas and not affraid to disagree with anyone.

I also had one colleague who was brilliant and had strong opinions about the product, which were expensive and demanding, and was affected by a lay off wave. I think him being original, not "focusing on the core product", and a strong character had something to do with it, so of course it happens.

[rokkamokka]

The other side of the coin is the needlessly defiant people. These believe themselves to be those that "have an informed opinion and are confident enough to voice it", but in reality they just disagree with everything and everyone except themselves. From a third party's point of view they're easy to discern, however.

[Buttons840]

I'm probably one of these defiant people, so I want to speak in their defense.

I really just want to be heard. I want to be heard and have a response from someone who has comprehended my point of view and fully engaged with it, but that rarely happens.

At my last job I was defiant because the company was storing plain text passwords and PPI in the test database, and every developer had access to it (I'm certain there is a reader of this comment whose password I had access to along with a good amount of PPI). I said this should be fixed but nobody really engaged with what I was saying; we had important product enhancements to work on. So I got defiant and pushed really hard and burned some of my political capital, made myself appear a trouble maker in some people's minds, and in the end the PPI was removed from the test database. This caused the test environment to break and some tests needed to be fixed. They still store plain text passwords though, because that assumption was spread throughout the code. I would have continued pushing to do the work and stop using plain text passwords, but I was laid off.

If a company prioritizes profit over ethics you will find trouble makers who are justifiably defiant. Judge for yourself how many companies do that.

[sorokod]

The bottom line is that you failed to achieve the goal you set out to achieve and got laid off.

How is that ”speak in their defense"? Can you think of an alternative approach that would have delivered the result over time without you loosing your job?

[ttoinou]

Oh those people disagree with themselves very often, that's how you can recognize them

[jerf]

Finding a reason to echo someone's own opinion back at them after a suitable time where they've forgotten they voiced it is a very effective test for disagreeableness, I've found. You don't need to chase them down about the contradiction. Just note it and take appropriate future actions.

It can even be a bit amusing, if they are insulting about it, to watch them vigorous call themselves stupid for expressing their previous opinions.

[qup]

I find many of my previous positions to be stupid.

[CamperBob2]

Right, as should we all. The key question is, when you're confronted with one of those opinions, do you defend it, deny it, or renounce it?

[n1b]

Agreed - and you will find not a single living person will pass this test over time. Therefore, it's a worthless, but deeply amusing, test. Human ignorance is so pervasive it even applies to people like you :)

[jerf]

I can tu quoque right back at you; can you conceive of a person who expresses some opinion (and this includes technical matters, things within the scope of your job, opinions you are being paid to have, not just random political things) only and solely because it is their real opinion? No, if you came at with me with my own opinion two weeks later, you would not find I have radically shifted very often, and even less often without realizing I've shifted, and virtually never insulting whoever held the opinion I held two weeks ago.

I don't base my opinions on whether or not I get to contradict someone else. Clearly some people do.

[rlpb]

> in order to steer the business in the direction they are convinced is the right one

It's also necessary to be able to accept that others have other opinions and that to make progress everybody needs to be pulling in the same direction. A decision must be made and most of the time it's not going to be exactly what you're convinced is the perfect direction. Yet, having said your piece and perhaps having influenced the direction, it's necessary to then support the final decision even if you don't precisely agree with it.

A large proportion of people with the qualities you describe are unable to do this, and therefore tend not to be highly regarded by management.

Of course if you consistently find yourself at odds with the eventual direction then you're better off being elsewhere.

[Aeolun]

The problem here being that if you are competent you’ll find it a strain to work in an environment that (often) does not listen to your advice, even if that means everyone is pulling in the same direction.

It’s nice for everyone else if they’re all contentedly pulling in the wrong direction, not so much for the one that sees that direction for what it is.

[Eisenstein]

In that case how are you sure that you are correct and everyone else is wrong?

[Aeolun]

Experience. Can only suffer from imposter syndrome so many times before you start to see a pattern.

Of course, any given instance may be right or wrong, but the balance of probability has shifted.

It’s especially egregious when you have literal years of experience with a subject and some person without any of that makes, or gets people to make decisions their way instead.

[ghaff]

And you may be right and you may be wrong. But you'll probably be happier if you go elsewhere.

[ghaff]

>I think him being original, not "focusing on the core product", and a strong character had something to do with it, so of course it happens.

You absolutely have people who are very competent but just not interested in what management (rightly or wrongly) thinks should be the current priorities. Sometimes things advance to the point where there's no longer a good fit. Not necessarily anyone's fault but it may be time to part ways.

[stareatgoats]

> This is, fortunately, not my experience.

I'm happy for you. I have also had such workplaces, healthy and dynamic organizations. Are they in the majority, or somewhere in the middle in a normal distribution? Not sure, but my guess is not.

[flkiwi]

My experience in very large organizations is that, other than CEOs who can go either way, the very top levels are extremely bright, surprisingly well-adjusted people. Tensions arise because, from the perspective of the senior leaders, VPs and below are indistinguishable from the most junior employees, while from the VPs’ perspective they are themselves senior leaders, leading to all sorts of friction.

It’s a bizarre environment and I cannot believe how much time I’ve spent in it.

[yosefk]

Sounds great! Care to share the places you've seen this at?