The article seems to be about arguing with your boss in _public_. Having a fight with anyone in public in a professional environment is pretty intense behaviour. Not saying I've never done it, but it's not usually productive. It takes a lot of skill to get things done your way without alienating people. We should always be careful of how we "debate" in a professional context. Discussion habits picked up on HN translate poorly to Slack.

Arguing with your boss in private, now that's a completely different deck of Magic cards. Totally helpful, productive behaviour if done respectfully and constructively. You're there to solve problems together, having differences of opinion is natural. Thrash it out between you in a 1:1, book time to engage and brainstorm.

Be nice, be prepared, find solutions that move things forward without bruising egos, try and get them to think it was their idea.

Importantly, you're coming to a decision in which they get the final say, because it's their team. Once a decision is made, after consultation, you just gotta roll with it. Don't bitch, or moan, or rub it in if things go wrong. Chain of command. One of these days you'll be there too.

If you keep on "losing" or finding yourself in constant conflict with your boss, that suggests a deeper problem. Jobs are like relationships, they've gotta work both ways. Maybe this isn't the right one for you (or them, but just as likely you).

Anyway. Never argue with your boss _in public_. Debate in private, come to a decision and move forward.

Everyone in this story sucks.

As a manager, the people I hired were almost always smarter than me or better than me at various things. That's why i hired them.

I did my best to make sure they were empowered to solve the problems the org needed solving.

Why would I not want their opinions or viewpoints, especially if they differed from my own?

Heck, why would i try to enforce my opinion or viewpoint in the first place?

Not realizing this makes the boss here a crappy manager. Yes, lots of crappy managers exist (for many reasons - one commonly overlooked one being that technicaly knowledge/etc is often shared and discussed much more than manager or organizational knowledge. So it doesn't proliferate as easily and quickly. There are many other reasons, some simpler, some more complex)

Truthfully, I resolved many many more arguments between people (within my own org or between orgs) than between me and someone else.

At the same time, the person arguing with their boss doesn't realize (until much later) their job is not to be technically right. Technically right/good is one of many aspects that are often getting traded off against each other. One thing they seem to not have discussed at all is "is this worth arguing about?". Does this choice really matter? What was the worst thing that happens if they don't do it the way they were arguing about. How likely is that really to happen, and if it does, can you tell early enough to do something about it? etc.

Reading this story feels like someone dragging out an argument continuously that simply didn't need to be argued about at all because it didn't matter enough.

The takeaway isn't that you should avoid arguing with your boss (as others say, you should run away from bosses you can't disagree with). The takeaway is that you should stop and think about whether this is really an argument that needs to be had, instead of arguing about everything because it's not perfect.

If your boss is so fragile they can't take a healthy debate or discussion or stand to be challenged on anything then find a new boss.

I feel like the real takeaway should be "don't make a competition out of a technical discussion". A culture that doesn't allow openly debating technical decisions sounds like one I wouldn't want to be part of.

Disclaimer: Work culture has changed since 2009 and obviously none of this applies if you work with/for someone who can't take any criticism or disagreement and expects subordination.

I think the issue is not disagreeing with one's boss, but what relationship you have with your boss.

There's a big difference between hostility and wanting to win against the other person vs. trying to find the best possible solution for the team, and clashing on what that should look like.

Some of this is about communication (continually centering on what goal one is trying to reach and validating the other party's perspective) other stuff is basic manners (don't make a public spectacle of your disagreements, especially in front of your boss's boss), but much of it boils down to relationship skills.

I think more people in tech should understand basic relationship skills and how they apply at work. Work is more transactional than a friendship or a marriage, but the core parts still matter: everyone wants to feel seen and heard, not invalidated and attacked.

I don't know. I mean, "never argue" is not a good maxim, imo.

But sure, ultimately your role is to provide your opinion as an expert, but you should step aside if your manager decides otherwise after hearing you. I think it's also correct: you are responsible for the decisions you make (which is true for you and your manager too).

So I think the author should have softened the discussion rather than going for a full confrontation. The boss surely didn't react rationally, or didn't surface their reasoning properly.

But being able to argue with your superiors (and peers) "the right way" is one of the most important skills to have in the workplace imo.

"I realize that my boss and I could have probably worked out some face-saving compromise behind closed doors before having any sort of public discussions."

Absolutely this. Nothing wrong with disagreeing, but don't have a screaming row with your boss in front of the team.

The title should be “Never argue with your boss disrespectfully”. In front of his boss nonetheless. Arguing with your boss is fine, just don’t throw tantrums.

Keeping the temperature low on these kinds of discussions seems like solid advice. Two interesting things about the conclusion I noticed:

1. The author left before any concrete negative outcomes came to pass. In particular, they may be mistaken that "nobody there really wanted to work with me after that" since they started looking for a job immediately. Sometimes people have a tendency to do too much pessimistic mind reading.

> If I was willing to engineer a scene like had just transpired in our all-hands meeting, how could they trust me as a member of their team? I might turn on them next.

> I also started looking for a new job, because I realized nobody there really wanted to work with me after that. I was gone a month later, and my boss lasted several more years.

2. The author also didn't stick around long enough after their faux pas to see the outcome of their architectural decisions. Maybe they weren't right after all.

By all means argue with your boss, but:

Do it respectfully and accept the decision if it goes against your advice. Your boss is either aware of issues you are not, or might otherwise have good reasons. In any case there is very seldom 1 "best" solution to a problem.

If your boss is genuinely an idiot, then still accept the decision, but start looking for a new job or assignment to a different team.

Seems to be very dependant on culture at the workplace.

Sure, I agree, for when I worried in for example Singapore, I would not agree for Scandinavia

I think there is a strong cultural effects to whether this is true.

I've worked in multinationals and I've noticed that in the US ( east coast in particular ) it's much more hierarchical - where arguing with your boss in public could be a firing offence.

This is less so in Europe.

If the company culture doesn't allow you to argue you with your boss, then you can expect that your boss is not allowed to argue with his boss and so on, up to CEO level. Such companies should, in time, go bankrupt because nobody could argue, if CEO makes a bad decision, CEO operates without feedback.

On the other hand, many such companies are protected because: they are too big to fail, have political connections, have monopoly, or oligopoly.

> how could they trust me as a member of their team? I might turn on them next.

This is also why you shouldn't gossip negatively about anyone, and you shouldn't make jokes about employee termination. People will view you as a threat. The threat perception will become dislike and they won't even know why they dislike you, they just do. Then they will hallucinate that you're a hopeless poor performer whatever your performance actually is, because they've already emotionally decided that you're awful.

Or you have the regrets when you needed to speak up and you didn't because you value your job security more than your duty: crooked or woefully incompetent boss. In the army instructors strongly warned about jumping chain of command. But you know, sometimes it gets very ugly, specially when they come after you.

Think it also depends on the nature of the disagreement. If it is something judgemental then it makes sense to back down earlier. The boss is the boss after all and he/she might be privy to additional knowledge. If they are straight up wrong in a technical sense then agreeing with the wrong thing is a bigger problem.

In a great display of irony, these comments are arguing hard and publicly against the conclusion

This hits close to home.

In academia arguing is sort of your job, or at least part of it.

So when a supervisor can't/won't understand their student's argument, the situation feels very futile.

Probably there's examples of constructive resolutions somewhere out there

I disagree with the final outcome that's just in private. If it's an open brainstorm to decide on solution, you don't have time to book the secret 1 to 1.

I think it's just respecting hierarchy, disagree, raise your concerns, if your boss overrules just accept it, you made your concerns known, they and the team heard of you, if they proceed anyways they accept the risk.

No point in forcing yourself to be the shot caller when it's not your job or responsibility to make the final decision.

Accepting the team consensus and respecting hierarchy is part of the game, unless you are a business owner, you are paid to do as told as an expert give your opinion. Nothing more you can do beyond that.

Equally, never give your 2IC a dressing down in public.

That's because you are doing a play with a specific role and dialogs. That role and its script doesn't include arguments.

This has nothing to do with it being your boss. It is a simple politeness rule, which applies in all situations: never ever get emotional at work.

Disagreeing is fine, arguing is fine, but you have to keep a level head at all times or you will embarrass yourself. It is just as bad (probably worse) to have an emotionally charged argument with someone junior to or level with you than with someone senior to you.

1. Not a great job if you truly cant argue with your boss.

2. the concept of arguing with your boss and humiliating them publicly is not the same, the word argue in the title is misused for the story the author tells

You don't necessarily need to argue a lot of times. Often the much better way is to deploy the rhetoric equivalent of a Judo throw, by using the momentum of the other side and ever so gently redirect it to have them lose their footing a few steps later. Do this well enough and it isn't even immediately clear who caused it.

Directly arguing has the downside that people with big egos will harden their positions even (or rather: especially) if they suspect they they might be wrong. If your goal is to let of steam while causing destruction, that is a valid strategy, if your goal is to reframe a topic, refute a point and/or win over the room, it often is not.

That all being said, we are talking about a public argument, not about private discussions. If you can make good points, bring the receipts arguing for those points is a good idea. However if given the chance it is a good idea to make these point in a smaller circle, in writing or in a one-in-one with your boss first, to give them the chance to agree with you when it is easy, instead of feeling put on the spot in front of everybody.

100%, don't argue with your boss. Sometimes, depending on how they phrased a statement or proposal, you can present contradictory facts but never claim to have the answer.

Either the boss wants to hear your opinion or they don't. You need to look at body language, tone and wording to decide. In any case, they must decide.

Disagreeing in front of other employees is especially risky... It can work in your favor sometimes, but only if it serves the boss... For example, you might be providing the boss with an opportunity to demonstrate humility over a topic which they don't pride themselves on. If the boss switches and agrees with you, can improve your image in front of other employees and the boss gets to look like they are a good listener and rational decision maker. Everyone wins.

It also rests heavily on the boss' personality. Some people always have to be right, else they hate you.

My DNS blocked this website because of the rule:

||righteousit.com^

HaGeZi Threat Intelligence Feeds - Medium version

Therefore sorry, no vote.

Have seen this myself in practise. Just like in this case it didnt end well. But this «lesson» so to speak is just the same concept in everyday life applied to work. You should generally never argue with authorities publically. It never ends well. Perhaps some free speech fanatics mean otherwise, but free speech doesn’t really exist.

In East Asia, particularly in Korea, there is a term called 'ganeon' (諫言, remonstration). It refers to speaking up when a superior's approach is wrong, in order to correct it.

But does a East Asian Confucian perspective always require it? Not necessarily.

From the Confucian viewpoint, an organization is not simply an arena for individual logical debates. Everyone has their own role and position, and when those roles collapse, the order of the community collapses.

'A superior must decide like a superior. A subordinate must remonstrate and support like a subordinate.'

What the OP's post did was not just make the boss look wrong. It declared that the boss 'could not function as a boss.' That's why the colleagues felt fear. It wasn't 'technically correct.' It was 'that person can publicly destroy the team's hierarchy.'

In Confucian terms, this is called 'remonstration without propriety.'

Good remonstration usually involves speaking privately first, respecting the other person's social face, and presenting options while preserving the form that the superior is the decision-maker. Those options should include risks and alternatives, so that it leads toward the direction you want.

In other words, you start by acknowledging that the boss's point is valid, then frame your disagreement as a risk you are worried about, but you're concerned about certain risks. If you say it that way, team members will later remember that you warned them, and the boss can't avoid responsibility either.

Of course, the boss also needs to have the right 'virtue' for that position. They need to listen to why subordinates object, and have the ability to make technical judgments. Storming out of a meeting saying 'I don't need this shit' is not boss-like behavior, so in an East Asian perspective, both sides are at fault. But many would see the subordinate who shattered the other's face as more at fault.

And of course, human relationships don't always have a right answer. I don't always follow this myself either—I fight with clients every day.

[flagged]

[dead]