[hashtag-til]

From my experience, you build that non-fluff boundaries in the first one or two meetings with a senior leader.

I’d advise against going in the first one throwing punches.

Go with actionable feedback and be honest about what it is and what is not something you can solve. From there, if you genuinely care about whatever you’re complaning, you are more likely to be taken seriously.

[stavros]

> I’d advise against going in the first one throwing punches.

I’d advise against going in any one throwing punches. Instead, give actionable, honest, factual feedback with the intent to legitimately help the other person.

[hashtag-til]

Fair enough, while I agree, in real project life, this calm, honest, factual feedback isn’t always enough for senior management to prioritise your issue.

Sometimes you need to a bit more assertive and blunt so that you become the top of the agenda, that’s what I meant by “throwing punches”.

Perhaps it means a much more over the top attitude in your view? (Happy to be corrected here)

[stavros]

If I need an issue prioritized, I'd have a discussion with senior leadership until one of us was convinced of the other's viewpoint, or we understood why we can't agree. For example, if my issue is clearly higher priority than anything else, I should easily be able to demonstrate that to senior leadership, and vice-versa. If we can't agree for a specific reason, we can say "the data is too fuzzy to know either way" and try to minimize risk.

Not all organizations will work like this, but that's a dysfunction that will need to be corrected. In that case, you should do what works (and that will be different for everyone), my particular situation won't apply to your particular situation.

[jms703]

This is the correct approach.

[rpmisms]

Simply be blunt about other topics to set the tone for interactions.