[cvoss]

> What’s a more realistic scenario here? Your manager stands up to their entire chain of command...

She should try, at the very least. Otherwise you have a bad manager. Your manager's job is to look out for what's best for the team, not to answer to a chain of command. This isn't the military.

If any employee, at any level, can't have a constructive conversation with the level above about what the level above has gotten wrong, you have a busted company culture.

Remember, you, the IC, are supposed to be the expert at your programming job. Your manager doesn't have that expertise, but she is supposed to be the expert at understanding what you're up to. Her manager doesn't have that expertise, so the second line manager should depend on your manager for that information, rather than dictate down manifestly inadequate productivity measures.

[sandworm101]

>> Your manager's job is to look out for what's best for the team, not to answer to a chain of command. This isn't the military.

Aside from the naïve understanding of military culture, an organization full of managers looking only to promote and protect their teams is equally unhealthy. Dilbert spoke of "battling business units" whereby each team fought against one another to promote themselves. Not good. A manager must represent their team upwards to the higher chain, but must also represents the higher chain downwards. It is always two-way conversation.

[zaphar]

Additionally, if your organization doesn't have the kind of culture where managers do this, then you should get out as soon as you can. It is the kind of place that doesn't value quality because quality is too hard to measure. Start looking for a different place and don't stop looking until you do.

[andrewla]

A police officer sees a drunkard under a streetlamp and asks him what is the matter. He says that he dropped his keys, and the officer asks him where he dropped them. He points off to the side and says that he dropped them over there, but "the light is better here".

> because quality is too hard to measure

This is the heart of it. A common business school trope that leaks everywhere is to be data-driven. This is fine up to a point. Once you realize that you can't measure actual quality, and decide to measure something else and call it quality, you are now part of a management structure whose goal is the preservation of the management structure.

[jjk7]

Then she will eventually get pushed out. You can't fight the culture of your leadership forever.

[toast0]

> You can't fight the culture of your leadership forever.

Depends where you work. I've been at a big company where the leadership cycled at a pretty regular pace; don't like the current leadership, just wait and see if you like the next set; in the mean time, hope for benign neglect; leadership is busy, maybe they'll just leave you alone. OTOH, I've also worked at companies where the CEO is the founder and still has majority votes --- leadership cycling was a lot less at those places.

[Pet_Ant]

> Your manager's job is to look out for what's best for the team, not to answer to a chain of command. This isn't the military.

No, your manager's job is to make their boss look good. This trickles up to making the CEO look good to the board and ultimately the investors/shareholders.

[ghusto]

Depends if you work for a shit company or not.

From the comments here, I think some have only _ever_ worked for shit companies. Other kinds of places do exist!

[from-nibly]

No that's just private equity, and public companies. Real companies, companies that sell stuff or services to others as the way they make money, have to deliver stuff to customers. The whole company has to answer to the customer.