Hi! I just got into an argument with my manager about how I had to follow processes.

Basically I asked "is it common for engineers to have problems with following rigid processes even where they don't make sense or are impractical in some cases?"

He said: "Nope: they just follow it. There are processes in place for changing processes."

Wonderful. Using the same rigidity in order to make sure there isn't too much rigidity. This is being done for project management purposes like CMMI or TQM.

The issue is where you're supposed to trust the people who organized the process to be wiser than you are and right in the long run...and that what seems nonsense to you is better in the long run.

Gifted people tend to question that. I certainly do. Does anyone else here?

As with everything, scope for discussion and questioning is *within reason*. Standard processes and procedures exist to streamline standard, everyday tasks so that needless discussion doesn't occur, and to minimize errors across collaborating units. Otherwise, the minutiae consume an absurd amount of resources, or whatever benefit might arise from the proposed improvement will be negated by the time spent in discussion.

Good companies will have education sessions to introduce employees to processes, and have onboarding materials. Usually, once you reach a meaningful level of experience, you're invited into discussions for modifying or improving processes. Those would be the appropriate forums for questioning approaches.

If you find yourself frequently being rebuffed when you bring up these ideas, it might be a good idea to create a standing, time-limited meeting for general clarifications with your manager (say, 30 minutes once a month). Then you have an appropriate outlet and are given voice, and your manager has a reasonable expectation that discussion will not spill over unduly.

No, the issue is that processes are determined as a best guess based on experience and history and other factors. And they are determined by someone other than you. As long as a process is not unethical, illegal, etc, when you sign onto the job, you sign on to the processes they give you. Even if it makes your contribution slower, less efficient, more costly, more apt to break, etc. It's the company's decision. Always good to point out glaring issues in the interest of the business/company, but at the level of the individual, not so much.

It actually IS common for gifted to question. That is to say, gifted will often make connections which others may not, and therefore more possibilities may come to mind, leading to comparatively more questions than others may think of.

That said, it is wise to also be aware of timing, and to know your audience. In other words, just because we have a question, suggestion, or idea, we need not blurt it out. And when sharing our thoughts, to realize they may be better received if one does not label others' ideas negatively, for example as impractical or not making sense.

If a policy/procedure may be lacking something, it has been known to be effective to ask questions, such as: "Would you walk me through this and help me understand how this would work... under this circumstance... or under this time constraint... or in this situation/scenario... ?" The other person may see the nonsensical/impractical aspect while walking you through it, and you may have won an ally for creating a work-around.

With engineering and many other jobs across various sectors of the economy, compliance may be an issue, and as laws and codes change over the years, compliance may lead to some very inefficient processes which people may be afraid to change in case the new streamlined process may fail to trigger any action needed for compliance. (It may help to picture a "Rube Goldberg" machine.)

Circling back to your original question, about gifted adults questioning processes, you may enjoy the topics in the Gifted Adults forum, including this collection of discussion threads and links, especially Gifted Adults in Work. You are not alone!