My CTO, when told that adding scope, reducing headcount, and keeping the same timeline all while discovering new unknowns in the codebase was not possible, we were simply told to make the date and asked who's performance review will be impacted. The "no" was entirely ignored. "I don't accept that."
I think bosses are like cats, when training them you have to make it think it is their idea. As I said in a sister comment the best way to do this is to not say the word "no" but to ask clarifying questions[0] so that all the puzzle pieces get placed on the table. Together you can assemble most of the puzzle, taking the lead but not lecturing them. But the final pieces have to be put together by them. Management is egotistical and if you just tell them then they get upset.
Your loyalty should be to the company, not the person. So by just "falling in line" you are failing the company.
Remember, if the project fails (and it will fail if it is impossible) people get fired anyways. Sure, getting fired later is better than sooner but it is still gonna happen.
[0] In your exact case, find out what they are actually after. Sounds like it might be a budgeting problem and they only know how to pull a few levers. They're business people, not technical people and they're working in a world that is highly technical. They're really a fish out of water and they don't know it[1]. It might be greed or panic too, which are harder to deal with and in those cases yeah, you should start looking for new work.
[1] I'm not saying a techie as a CEO or in a management position wouldn't be a fish out of water either. That'd be similarly as naive. But a well functioning workplace has to understand that these are different skillsets and we have to intermingle. You can't know everything so we have to work together to leverage our niche expertise.
Actually I worked for a failed startup where everyone left because they disliked management. In that startup I was the lowest paid engineer and the only non "staff" level one who had a contract bringing in money to the company. My last employee review with the company was terrible even though they admitted in the meeting that I had achieved all the goals and gone above and beyond what they had requested I do to get a promotion[0]. It was pretty clear it was about money, I asked if this was actually a performance issue or a money issue. The conversation changed though still ended up being very political...
This is part of why I'm insisting you need to work with me to be able to communicate. You are reaching for assumptions that justify your position. My opinions are shaped by these TERRIBLE experiences.
Management makes or breaks a company. As an employee it is your job to help ensure the culture works. But you can only do so much too. I'm not saying change the world. As a standard employee if things are going south, it is time to brush up your resume and start shopping around. You can interview without taking a job. You're not stuck where you are, so stop acting like that. The problem with your point of view is that you act like you have no options. It is either work for where you work now or have no job. Don't quit until you have something else lined up. But also don't be afraid to quit. It's not worth being miserable. Interviewing to find a better fit is infinitely better than hating yourself day in and day out, more and more as time goes on.
I'm not saying it is easy either btw. It definitely takes work! But neither are you stuck.
[0] I came with receipts. I had them give me a comprehensive goal list in my previous year's performance evaluation because I had already recognized some of these issues. So I wanted something in writing. It helps. (And btw, I even had a meeting with my direct manager 6mo in and 3mo before the yearly review to make sure I was on track)
> This is part of why I'm insisting you need to work with me to be able to communicate. You are reaching for assumptions that justify your position. My opinions are shaped by these TERRIBLE experiences.
Not really. I'm reaching my conclusion after several experiences in various domains (fintech, ad tech, logistics software, and government-adjacent firms). Each company is terrible in its own little way. The reasons aren't always the same, but they can vary from colleagues to bizarre pipelines, to management to CEOs.
I have communicated this to management, to PO, to scrum masters, to a point. I don't want to get fired of course.
And I can see the outlines of what caused these issues and why management is doing what it is, but that's again tied to a larger economy at play.
> You're not stuck where you are, so stop acting like that.
Again, you're assuming you understand my condition.
It's a different pickle. I'm waiting for an external thing to happen (it has been continuously delayed for nearly 12 months) to be able to change jobs. Not that it's easy in the current market.
Just because your experiences don't match mine does not mean mine are invalid.
> Again, you're assuming you understand my condition.
I have not, but you've pretty explicitly made assumptions about me.
You'll notice I've made no such explicit claims about you. So maybe there's a difference between what I've assumed about you and what you assume I've assumed about you. Given the inaccurate explicit assumptions you've made about me, I think it is pretty reasonable to question your assumptions. To be explicit, question doesn't mean reject. Suspect doesn't mean invalidate.
The GP has been homeless and lived off of discarded food.
You're right that saying "no" is a privilege. But also there's nothing as empowering as knowing that it's not going to be as bad as it was before.
Stop making assumptions about me and start trying to communicate with me. We can't talk if you want me to be wrong and just reinforce your position.
And sorry, I'm not as good as doing the cat wrangling in social settings as I am in technical ones. It's a different set of tools to work with and much harder to do in an online setting.
You're right that it is the whole structure, but the whole structure is made of people, individuals. Collective action can't happen without individual action. You don't just magically go from no people doing something to everybody doing something. You start with one person doing something, then more, and more, and it spreads like a virus. Both good and bad behavior spread this way, not instantly.
Look, our literal job is to take hard problems and break them down into small and more manageable problems, right? Addressing the whole company is too big of a problem, you have to break it down. You, you are an addressable problem that you can change. The people close to you? Harder, but easier than those far away. They're also easier to convince when you make the change yourself.
Or you can just give up and rot in the soup. Would you rather try to remove the rot from the soup or bathe in it?
How do you say no in that situation? Just quit?