When your manager isn't supporting you, develop a manager crew
larahogan.me
larahogan.me
If it is really really that bad, it's a much better outcome to leave amicably versus fighting to fix the issue. Remember that software is a very small industry we all work together in.
There's no candid way to fix your manager's behavior if they are non-existent, or completely detached from their team. Especially if your manager's manager does not care or know.
If you want to grow into a different job then that can be a worthwhile route, sometimes. But there is only so far that any individual should be asked to go on their own. Ideally the employee/employer relationship is a two way street, you do work and the management/corporate structure also does work to facilitate you in your work and help you be as productive, engaged, and satisfied as possible. If the management chain is doing no work and you have to pick up the slack or if they are doing negative work that you have to counteract then that's an abusive relationship. If you were doing no work for the company they wouldn't hesitate to push you out the door ASAP, you shouldn't be excessively more committed to the professional relationship than they are. There are lots of other opportunities out there, go find one where your talents are appreciated and complemented by others. You don't have to set yourself on fire to keep others warm.
Not that it would have changed my decision to leave, the commute was terrible and I wasn't willing to move.
If your boss isn't supporting you, GTFO. Either to another group internally or another company.
No offense, but most of this it putting lipstick on a pig. There's no cure for laziness or bad intent.
Don't waste your time with a bad boss.
Your boss isn't doing their job, so "fire" them (get a new one).
You beat me to it.
Your job at your workplace is what you were hired for. Yes, that position's requirements and workload may change, but that is to be expected. What should not be expected is for you to do all that and do what your boss is failing to do in their own job.
If you'll have to work extra hard to do your boss' work as well... why aren't you getting paid more? Or why aren't you the boss? It's clearly a sign to look elsewhere for employment, if you're not already.
Unsupportive bosses are a sign of bad culture or that their bosses are likely equally unsupportive or clueless. Cut your losses.
Did you know Indeed will send you unlimited alerts on a daily basis! Great site :D
No need to stick around for a bad boss.
What’s paradoxical is the advice for building a cohort of advisors is valid even when you have a supportive boss.
My story: I was given the option to change my boss for the first time in 2006 or so. At this company, I'd already been promoted several times, ostensibly on merit, which involved a different boss each time. This event was different. The team was growing and we simply needed more people doing similar things. I decided my relationship with a (somewhat older) peer-turned-manager would be better off if I didn't report to him.
Had he been a bad boss? Not really, but he wasn't a good boss. The new boss wasn't any better or worse. Old boss and I both spent the next year slightly miserable, but I wouldn't have known how miserable he was until he suddenly left the company. And then he hired me away a few months later.
He also fired me a couple years later. Why? I was sick of the job, and I mostly deserved it; we were also at a smaller company now, where more egos were crammed into one room. I'd also literally been given a second job and a second title, complete with a second boss, who was also my boss's boss. (No pay increase, of course.)
Was it more work than I could handle? Not exactly. Was there a mismatch between my responsibility and my power? Absolutely. Did losing this job damage my career? Not in the long run, and I learned far more valuable lessons about the need to simply work differently with different people.
I think stories like this are close to the best possible outcome when you have a bad boss. And I think the moral here, is that a Voltron Manager is something everyone should have regardless of how good their current manager may be.
If you cannot leave, understand why (e.g., does your resume feature COBOL as a top skill?) and try to fix this quickly. Having a mindset "I like working here, but I can find another job quickly if I have to" helps greatly in any job, e.g. by letting you take calculated risks at your job (and sleep well at night), which on success can give you great benefits. My 2c.
edit: My story is about developing the opportunities to leave several different mediocre bosses, sometimes more than once! It really did work out for me, even when I made the decision to go back to the devil I knew.
All of these mediocre bosses were well-intentioned former engineers and I have no lingering ill will toward any of them. The part I left out of the story, is that behind the scenes in all of this, was the layer of management above and around them. I was incredibly fortunate that a Voltron had sort of built itself around me. Other engineers I barely got to know, noticed my work. The executive overseeing the departments at both companies paid attention to what his reports were doing. He didn't want to listen to me lament every possible bit I ever might have to twiddle, but he was a significant guiding force in my career for years before I even realized it.
It is possible to develop relationships like this, through good faith efforts. But I honestly don't know how I would pass along any advice about this, other than by being as honest as possible about what happened in my life. Essentially: Look Around.
I am sure they do, but this is likely due to a funky supply and demand state: low demand but even lower supply which leads to good compensation but fewer opportunities. To acquire a freedom to move to a new employer I would emphasize my high demand skills instead. Just an opinion
I hope for your sake that you aren't. If you are, you probably are already getting screwed and just don't know it yet. And it'll probably end with another disillusionment because the company sure as hell won't be loyal to you once the CEO can increase his exit-bonus by firing you.
Europe has a much better workplace culture in general , and there is some loyalty between the worker and the workplace.
Some have decided to quit just before the firing rounds, because we all could see it coming. That is "disloyal", but they are now employed again. That may have been the better decision for them.
All of this was in a European Company.
I believe it can worth being loyal to co-workers and your immediate boss if they deserve it, since they're actual human beings and can be loyal to you, but a company is not a human.
Basically: In some cases where you work and what you are working on trumps who you are working for and how much you are paid.
And with so many unemployed tech workers you don't think tech companies would face an equal level of difficulty in having so many empty positions?
If tech workers were more savvy and critical in terms of deciding where they work and what conditions they allow themselves to work under (e.g. crunch, bad management, etc.) the industry would be breaking its back to try to change things to hold onto and acquire talent.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/people-dont-leave-bad-jobs-bo...
Not everyone here works in a tech-hub or even in a large company.
How about ending that convention in countries that have it? In Belgium most people do not change their name upon marrying, and I do not see the point of doing so. Person X and Y marry, there's a contract already, no name change is needed for that.
If you can remember different first names, why couldn't you remember different last names?
As for kids: it's pretty simple, pick a name of one of the parents. Nothing confusing about it. A name (first+last combo) is an identifier of a person.
Are you seriously baffled why people choose to do symbolic things to show their love for each other and show how they are bringing their lives together, even when it isn't convenient to do so?
If you genuinely are then I can't imagine how you are living day-to-day in human society because people do all kind of things like that in all parts of society.
It's not a constructive expectation of a society to have imho. A name is an identifier of a person. You need a first and last one to have less same-name clashes.
What portion of people do you think have any of those other than the email address (which for many people's personal addresses doesn't even include their full name)? For my wife at least, the email address is what convinced her to change her name because it made it possible for her to get the address firstnamelastname@gmail.com.
My wife didn't change her name but that meant she has a different surname to our children. That can cause minor annoyances in airports, for example. It's not a big deal, and it's fairly predictable, but it's a thing.
Can somebody explain a bit on what social problems can women expect in US for not changing names?
The ramifications of this will depend on how common it is for women to not change their names in your particular locale: if it's uncommon, there will be some confusion when people expect children and parents' names to match, as well as people wondering about whether the child is actually your stepchild, etc. Of course, those judgmental/insensitive reactions are inappropriate, but they do happen.
Because it doesn't affect anything in practice what their name versus parents name is, a name is an identifier of a person.
Changing a name on the other hand gives practical problems such as for any copyrights, email address, source code, publications, etc...
That's easy to say, but that's just your personal feelings on the matter. My sister left her name alone when she got married, but changed her mind (and her name) when she got pregnant, specifically because she wanted her kid to have the same last name as her.
I would probably make the opposite decision if I were in her shoes, but it was her decision, based on her desires and what makes her the most happy; not mine, and not yours.
> Because it doesn't affect anything in practice what their name versus parents name is
Depending on where you live, there can be social confusion and even a stigma. Maybe you're lucky in that where you live that isn't a problem, but that's not the case everywhere.
> Changing a name on the other hand gives practical problems such as for any copyrights, email address, source code, publications, etc...
No one's saying there aren't practical problems, but if the name change is worth it to you, then by definition you have accepted that trade off as also being worth it.
Some reasons why I changed name:
1. My kids and I now share all surnames.
2. I had no relation to any parts of the family that shared my previous last name.
3. It felt a teeny weeny bit progressive being the male who changed.
Not everything is black and white and needs to focus on business needs... :) Accounts were easily renamed (except Skype, bluh) and no one has asked me for any of my papers or research. Just add them to your profile as you would before you changed name.
I know that in California, at least when I got married, both people are allowed (or just one person) to take the others name or some combination of both names.
I was curious at the time, but never checked, if the combination could literally just be any combination of the letters of both. My guess is it would be the county clerk you deal with who’d decide to accept it or not.
Laws on surnames for children are prescribed: http://french-genealogy.typepad.com/genealogie/2012/06/chang...
And you're not allowed a tilde: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/14/french-court-bans...
(This is the appeal) http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/...
Here, the mother was already involved in care proceedings, and the local authority child protection social workers weren't able to just force her to pick different names, but had to go to court in front of an independent judge.
It's a pretty detailed document and it shows, I think, how uncomfortable English judges are with exercising this power.
There's a less malign version in Iceland, which basically just makes sure that it's possible to use someone's name grammatically in Icelandic.
Gen 1: FirstName P1-LastName P2-LastName
Gen 2: FirstName P1-P1-LastName P1-P2-LastName P2-P1-LastName P2-P2-LastName
Gen 3: FirstName P1-P1-P1-LastName P1-P1-P2-LastName P1-P2-P1-LastName P1-P2-P2-LastName P2-P1-P1-LastName P2-P1-P2-LastName P2-P2-P1-LastName P2-P2-P2-LastName
Or in your example:
Gen X: FirstName P1-First-LastName P2-Second-LastName
There is a trend towards using most rare last name as opposed to the more traditional name of parent of one particular gender
(Also, some people do enjoy that convention, while others do not. It shouldn't be expected, but it should certainly be permitted.)
Tangentially, this article about names and cultures is also a great resource that makes a strong recommendation: just use one field and be as flexible as possible https://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-personal-names
Agreed, "permitted" is ok, "expected" not. Seems like "expected" in many places...
That's presumably because the law says you can't [0]. Unless you go through the equivalent of deed poll.
[0] https://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/services/services_abroad/re...
You should have proper training for this issue or at least consulted with hr or an employment lawyer.
I use it frequently with multiple managers and directors. It entirely depends on your relationship with the person. Sometimes you can cultivate a relationship where being so formal and subservient is unnecessary, if not counter productive.
Edit: Not in California, or the US.
I've actually never worked anywhere such formality was expected, and suggesting something like that would probably get you some weird looks. I wonder if it's an industry thing? Perhaps some industries tend to enforce politeness/formality between rungs in the career ladder more than others?
Depending on your answer I may have been backhandedly offending managers for the past 15 years.
If your worried about how you're subordinates are addressing you in an email you need to get a life. Not sure I'd want to work somewhere where my manager is stuck up / has an inflated sense of his importance. Maybe I've always been lucky to have relaxed managers, sort that I can go get drunk with.
Overall I'd say I hey'd about 80% of bosses and 95% of employees at least some of the time.