This title of my article doesn't make much sense to me. Why would you get fired for giving feedback? Is this just a US thing? I give feedback to my superiors all the time, and expect my subordinates to do the same. In fact, as far as my team goes, you're more likely to get into trouble (not fired) if you rarely give feedback.
American workplaces are very toxic. Waves of managers ride on the coattails of the latest dude in charge. That they are completely clueless doesn’t prevent them from getting the job. If you point out their failures, you will immediately be labeled as part of the opposition.
In other words, this is pure Machiavellian politics. The truth doesn’t matter. If you don’t kiss the donkey’s ass, the best advice IMO is to shut the hell up, collect your paycheck, and go home and kiss your wife. Your family is the only people who matter. The farce will go on for years. Like all Ponzi schemes, it will eventually collapse. But it may take years.
when your boss is a one-upper who doesnt understand your teams product, they will do everything possible to sabatoge your efforts and spin metrics to make you look bad. attempting to give feedback to such a person will get you this response: "you need to earn trust and learn to disagree and commit".
idk if this is a US thing; its mainly a thing where a manager is tasked with supporting a product that they dont understand. managers in these situations attempt to treat their managerial role as if the product itself does not matter - the team has metrics to hit, and to them thats more important than the product.
> give feedback to such a person will get you this response: "you need to earn trust and learn to disagree and commit"
Sure, but you won't get fired, right?
Even so, this is just about dealing in general with people who have ego (for the sake of brevity) issues. I don't understand why this should be advice for dealing with senior leadership in general.
> Sure, but you won't get fired, right?
in my experience, they will start an email paper trail as a precursor to a PIP.
It's not only US thing, eastern european too. We're on average rather alright developers but culturally there's no skill of good management - we have been destroyed in this aspect by Soviet occupation and communism.
> Why would you get fired for giving feedback? Is this just a US thing?
Possibly: in many places there they have "at will" employment, where they can basically fire you with little to no severance at any time for any reason. There are limits, but compared to most of Europe that's the gist of it.
So yeah, you can be fired just because someone doesn't like you. And giving feedback is a good way to not be liked.
every employment should be at will!! is there a constitutional or birthright to employment at XYZ company? these discussion always look at one side, like “employer can’t fire employee X without paying severance and other junk” but if I started a company and said “if you leave the company you have to pay severance back to the company for leaving” everyone would be up in arms about it…
> every employment should be at will!!
I would agree in an ideal world where salaries are tied to a qualification (a notion a tad more nuanced than just diploma), instead of their job. While there is no (nor should be any) constitutional right to work at any given company, I think people should have an inalienable right to live. Which in practice means food, shelter, and health care at a minimum, regardless of their ability (perhaps even willingness) to work anywhere.
The compromise most EU countries have settled on is that once you're employed and past some probation period (in my line of work that can last up to 8 months), then they can't fire you without a damn good reason or a hefty severance (the better the reason the lower the severance, basically). But it cuts both ways: I personally can't leave immediately, I have to tell my employer 3 months in advance. It is in a way a kind of severance.
I think this arrangement would be fair if you had to pay back to the company the same amount they have to pay you. to get a notice for some period of time makes sense (both ways) but I can’t see a reason why this is all not equal on both sides.
> I can’t see a reason why this is all not equal on both sides.
I can.
Think of what employment is for a second: shareholders (or company owners) own the capital, and the employee gets to follow orders. Structurally, the company pay workers less than their actual value: shareholders gotta hold, and they squeeze the margin out of the employee. The margin may be thin, but it's never meant to be zero (except for non-profits, but they're the exception).
Such a relationship is fundamentally asymmetrical, such an exchange fundamentally unequal. If you want any hope of restoring fairness from this system, termination conditions have to be asymmetrical as well.
And I can’t see a reason why it should be equal. Even if you strip the relationship down to its most basic principle, there is asymmetry. One party provides work with the expectation of pay, the other party providess pay with the expectation of work.
But the asymmetries don’t end there. Terminating employment is a far greater threat to the employee than the employer. This creates a power imbalance which could easily be exploited by malicious or incompetent employers. That power imbalance is fundamental to this relationship and is reason enough (in the opinion of many countries) to bolster worker rights.
I live in a US state that has at-will employment.
I once had an owner of a small business threaten to sue me for quitting because it would cause financial harm to the business. And that was with giving 4 weeks notice.
At-will employment laws protect employees that want to quit, not just employers that want to fire.
> At-will employment laws protect employees that want to quit
Does your unemployment insurance work after you quit? Or does it only work when you're fired?