> You should optimize so that your goals are your managers goals.
Which was addressed with:
> Your future earnings depend on your skills, on your reputation, and on your relationships with your coworkers, not on your manager, unless you're working at Google and don't plan to leave.
Replace Google with any company.
And:
> It's worth putting up with bad working conditions in exchange for learning opportunities, but not for mere money.
Focusing overly on pleasing your manager reminds me of "penny wise, pound foolish". My experience matches his. If you want to rise within a company, then yes, please your manager. And if your manager is decent enough, your and your parent's approach are aligned. But all too often (and more often at larger companies), what is good for the manager is only good for you in the short term. A lot of managers want you to focus on the immediate needs, and do not value skills development, for example. I've seen managers where the path to promotion was to become really, really good with an in-house tool, and with in-house processes. Those who stuck to that job often tell me now that they have trouble finding any job outside because their experience was not valuable.
If you replace Google with almost any company, you're going to have a pathetically poor career if you stay there for your entire career, whether you measure by earnings, by lasting achievement, or by working conditions. There are a few exceptions.
How much “skills development” do you think you will achieve by going against your manager’s goals? You won’t last long enough at the company to do too much of anything.
If your manager is of the type that stunts your skills development, it’s time to leave the company. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for Resume Driven Development but I’m not going to go against my manager and not be seen as “team player”.
> How much “skills development” do you think you will achieve by going against your manager’s goals? You won’t last long enough at the company to do too much of anything.
Why are you speaking in binaries? I don't think anyone here is advocating "going against your manager's goals".
Not "focusing overly on pleasing your manager" is very different from "going against your manager's goals". There's a lot of area in between. And my experience in a big company that's not a startup: In most cases not focusing on pleasing your manager will not result in a job loss, and most managers simply do not expect to have more than 1 or 2 people in the team who'll focus on pleasing them.
And if you are in a situation where not overly pleasing your manager means losing your job, then you and your parent are in agreement. What he said:
> It's worth putting up with bad working conditions in exchange for learning opportunities, but not for mere money.
What you said:
> If your manager is of the type that stunts your skills development, it’s time to leave the company.
Which was why I was wondering if you meant to respond to someone other than kragen.
Which was addressed with:
> Your future earnings depend on your skills, on your reputation, and on your relationships with your coworkers, not on your manager, unless you're working at Google and don't plan to leave.
Replace Google with any company.
And:
> It's worth putting up with bad working conditions in exchange for learning opportunities, but not for mere money.
Focusing overly on pleasing your manager reminds me of "penny wise, pound foolish". My experience matches his. If you want to rise within a company, then yes, please your manager. And if your manager is decent enough, your and your parent's approach are aligned. But all too often (and more often at larger companies), what is good for the manager is only good for you in the short term. A lot of managers want you to focus on the immediate needs, and do not value skills development, for example. I've seen managers where the path to promotion was to become really, really good with an in-house tool, and with in-house processes. Those who stuck to that job often tell me now that they have trouble finding any job outside because their experience was not valuable.