>>You really hit the nail on the head with the description of the job. It really is a trust issue - I have told them several times that I don't feel like they trust me to provide a solution, even though they say that's not the case. Even if they really didn't trust me (even if it was justified), at least I gave them an opportunity to come clean and give me an explanation.
>
>Ahh, too bad, sorry to hear that. Lack of trust is hard to fix, especially as a subordinate.
>
>As an aside, I saw in another message, you were grumbling about job satisfaction and clueless managers, and wondering if it might be you. Speaking with absolutely no negative implications, have you ever had the opportunity to take a psychological profiling test, or participate in a profiling workshop?
>
>At the last "real" job I had, there was this one guy that nobody liked. Most people could simply avoid him, but he and I were in the same small department and I had to work with him. He irritated me so much that one day I just blew up at my manager about him. The other guy thought he was getting along OK with me (i.e. he was "clueless"), but I wasn't getting along with him, so of course it was me who got sent to the profiling workshop.
>
>So there I was, a logical, rational engineer, forced to go to an artsy-fartsy, touchy-feely course. The poster boy for going in with a closed mind.
>
>First, we took a profiling test (not Myers-Briggs, but something similar). Based on the results of that, we were broken up into 4 different groups in separate rooms. Each had to (as a group) agree on, and rank culpability in the story at the bottom of http://adamcadre.ac/calendar/11627.html . That particular task is used because there is no clear-cut, right or wrong answer.
>
>The group I was in agreed on an answer in less than 5 minutes. Two of the other groups took something like 15 and 20 minutes. The last group was stopped at 45 minutes and at that point was nowhere near a consensus.
>
>The course facilitator brought us back together, and asked each group to outline how we reached a consensus (if one was reached).We were then given a handout. It predicted that my group would finish first, the two others would finish near the middle of the allotted time, and the other group would not finish at all. It also listed likely or recommended occupations and interests for each of the 4 main personality types.
>
>Like just about everyone else in the room, I was shocked at its accuracy. Before I went in, I was aware that tests like that existed but I was totally dismissive of the idea that their findings could actually apply to me. Boy, was I wrong. Intellectually, you might believe or "know" that other people "think differently", but until you take a test or participate in a setting like that you may not have a real gut feel for just how different some people are from you.
>
>Ultimately, it didn't help me like my co-worker any better, but I understood him better. I understood myself a lot better, too. I'd recommend that anyone take at least one test or workshop like that in their life. It can help a lot in deciding what you want to do, and how you want to do it.
>
>As another aside, one thing you learn with this type of testing is there are some people who are basically, "conventionally unemployable". They may hold conventional jobs, but they can never be really happy while subordinate to or working for someone else. They may "work with", but they don't like to "work for". These people tend to become entrepreneurs, small-business owners, perhaps consultants, artists etc. Maybe you're one of these.
>
>SET PSYCHOANALYSIS OFF

Al, I have taken a DISC profile in the past, and it found that I was extremely driven in my work. I don't like barriers - I like somebody to tell me what to do, perhaps point me in the right direction, and get the heck out of the way. I realize that make me hard to manage by somebody who is a micromanager, but I don't think that is necessarily 100% bad.