[HN Gopher] How to work with me
___________________________________________________________________
How to work with me
Author : davidbauer
Score : 161 points
Date : 2022-03-29 12:11 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.davidbauer.ch)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.davidbauer.ch)
| bmulyadi wrote:
| Although the intention is great, I wonder if the act of creating
| such a document ironically constructs a barrier of expectations
| on the 'right' way of interacting with the said individual
| vericiab wrote:
| To me, a lot of this reads more like some sort of "Team/Company
| Values and Culture" document than the user manual of a single
| individual.
|
| Things like "Default to action" are pretty dependent on
| team/company culture and what you're working on. Your coworkers
| won't start defaulting to action just because you prefer it if
| their boss, their boss' boss, etc prefer cautious consideration.
| There's nothing wrong with preferring to work somewhere with a
| "default to action" culture, but presumably by the time someone
| is reading this you've already made the decision that the culture
| is a good fit for you. (Ditto for "There's life beyond work". If
| that isn't the existing culture, then as a reader all it tells me
| is that you choose to work somewhere that doesn't share your
| values and we may be in for a bumpy ride.)
|
| Similarly, the way it's written now "Mind the channel" reads like
| a mandate about team/company norms and culture. Despite being
| under the heading of "How to efficiently work and communicate
| with me", rather than explaining which channels of communication
| you prefer in which contexts, it makes a broad statement about
| what the reader should consider when communicating with anyone.
| IMO guidance on how to communicate with others in general, rather
| than you specifically, belongs in a team handbook and not your
| personal user manual.
|
| "Don't give clues" on the other hand is a good example of
| something that does seem to belong in a user manual. It explains
| something about you and tells the reader how to more effectively
| communicate with you. It doesn't make broad generalizations about
| how they should communicate with others in general.
|
| In the end, I wonder whether this should be split into multiple
| documents - maybe a user manual (for people working with you) and
| a separate list of what's important to you in a working
| environment and company culture (for yourself when job hunting)?
|
| In any case, for the user manual I think it would help to replace
| broad platitudes and decrees with statements focused on you. If a
| statement would make sense in a team handbook or similar, I think
| that's a sign that it may come across as
| inappropriate/presumptuous in your personal user manual.
| Justin_K wrote:
| I really appreciate posts like this when I'm hiring, as it alerts
| me early on that someone expects the team and company to conform
| to their standards. That may work great for some organizations,
| but not ours.
| lowercased wrote:
| > We wouldn't be here, working together, if one of us could do it
| on their own.
|
| Interesting belief. I don't actually think it holds true in a lot
| of situations, certainly at least many 'work/employment'
| situations I've been.
| jordanpg wrote:
| Making these became trendy at my last company for a few months.
|
| I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now. I guess I just
| don't see who has time for this kind of thing -- literally. I
| doubt very seriously anyone ever actually read these things.
| idontknowifican wrote:
| it's much more for the author than the reader. see it as an
| exploration of your intentions at work, more of a way to find
| who you are
| moron4hire wrote:
| Seriously. These things always give me the same vibe as RMS'
| speaking rider: "LOL. Whatever, dude. Not going to ever be a
| concern for me."
| no-dr-onboard wrote:
| Sadly, this strikes me as a document that was initially as
| egocentric as the title implies, but was later groomed and
| manicured to be more palatable. The match/replace "we" language
| is there to support this.
| teekert wrote:
| Nice, but typically a manual written by oneself, I could write
| something similar about myself. But ask my wife to write one... I
| bet it will be quite different.
| anabis wrote:
| There is a song called "Torisetsu" - user manual in Japanese.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jtUll4ZrOw
| circlefavshape wrote:
| @davidbauer your motivation for doing this seems honourable, but
| I think it's unlikely to be useful to either yourself or your co-
| workers. We're going through a cultural moment where
| communication-via-words (especially written words) is widely
| regarded as canonical, but human interaction is much richer than
| plain text. For someone who wants to get to know you the time
| spent reading and understanding your article would be better
| spent just hanging out with you
| pie42000 wrote:
| Really surprised that a journalist like you doesn't understand
| the need for brevity. 98% of this "how to work with me" is
| actually "i like talking about myself". There is like half a
| sentence of semi-useful (probably aspirational) info on you and
| then paragraphs of philosophical meandering.
|
| At least Patrick Bateman stuck with a single business card, you
| had to go and write a whole life story and print it on your
| digital business card that you presumably shove down everyone's
| throats.
|
| Consider deleting immediately, i would never work with someone
| who wrote something like this. Cheers.
| fleddr wrote:
| The title may come across as arrogant, but when you read it, it's
| very empathetic.
|
| You might as well sum it up as "be nice and reasonable, and don't
| waste each other's time".
| jdauriemma wrote:
| Thanks for sharing this! I'm sure your team will benefit from the
| clarity with which you outlined your values and working style.
| Camille Fournier wrote a piece on "manager READMEs" that, if
| nothing else, is worth considering. I'm less opinionated about
| the practice, but I definitely am glad I read her article:
|
| https://skamille.medium.com/i-hate-manager-readmes-20a0dd9a7...
| ushakov wrote:
| no person ever will _want_ read this page
|
| ...and no mentally stable person ever _needs_ to write a page
| like this
|
| this just screams "i'm a narcissist, these are my rules. wanna
| talk to me? obey the rules!"
| robocat wrote:
| > no mentally stable person
|
| I think that sort of judgement breaks HN guidelines:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| andai wrote:
| Did you read the page?
|
| Re: "no person will ever want to read this page": I have read
| the manual, I found it quite refreshing actually. Different
| strokes for different folks, I guess.
|
| I was thinking of creating a manual of my own, and a curious
| thought occurred to me while reading your response (and other
| negative responses in this thread): the kind of people who are
| repelled by this sort of thing are probably not the kind of
| folks I'd enjoy working with, so that's actually a _feature_ as
| far as I 'm concerned. (Not making a negative evaluation about
| a group of people, just stating a personal preference and how
| such a "filter" as a personal manual might actually work to
| one's favor.)
|
| Steve Pavlina has written on this subject[0], how broadcasting
| your true personality/values/desires will get you a lot more
| rejections, but will also allow you to connect with others who
| are a better match for you, who might have missed your
| authentic self if you had masked it instead.
|
| He asserts that most people are so afraid of rejection (getting
| a "1" ie. a mismatch) that they settle for "partial matches" in
| the 6-7 range, but they'd actually be far happier if they had
| the courage to broadcast their true values because it's the
| only way to find the "10s".
|
| [0] https://stevepavlina.com/blog/2014/09/ones-and-tens/
| ushakov wrote:
| of course not! why would i?
| Bancakes wrote:
| You missed nothing. Better that you continue life
| forgetting this concept of manuals.
| verinus wrote:
| I think you actually miss the point completely- go read the
| content, then comment upon it!
| Bancakes wrote:
| Sounds great for people on the spectrum. However, neurotypicals
| either don't care about you at all, or care enough to converse
| with you until we learn your unspoken manual.
| andai wrote:
| The manual says we prefer texting ;)
| danw1979 wrote:
| > If you start working with a new person, wouldn't it be nice if
| you had some sort of user manual that gives you a basic
| understanding of how to work with them?
|
| This is literally the last thing I would look for or indeed think
| to look for.
| escapedmoose wrote:
| I think I would want one written by someone else. It'd be more
| honest.
| [deleted]
| kkjjkgjjgg wrote:
| Cool, and then let's make it harassment to ignore the
| instructions in somebodies user manual (not just ignoring their
| pronoun preference), so everybody has to learn the user manual of
| all their colleagues by heart.
| JabavuAdams wrote:
| I mean, or we could not catastrophize and slippery-slope this.
| Given the eye-rolls and push-back just on evidence here, I
| don't think this idea has legs. I wonder how much of this is
| generational. Like "how freaking entitled are these kids now?"
| Publishing manuals on how to talk to them. Not saying I fully
| believe that, but it's the obvious "get off my lawn ya damn
| kids" reaction.
| kkjjkgjjgg wrote:
| I support people's rights to write user manuals for
| themselves. The idea is even amusing to some degree. I just
| don't want to be forced to read them, and especially not be
| accused of not adhering to the rules in the manual.
|
| And yes, I admit the word "snowflakes" popped up in my head.
| JabavuAdams wrote:
| Agreed.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| Seems like you were trying to be sarcastic but you did just
| derive basic respect toward other people.
| kkjjkgjjgg wrote:
| Yes, that is how they will argue, so I guess it is inevitable
| that it will happen. But no. Asking other people to learn
| YOUR user manual is already disrespectful, so it is not
| disrespectful to refuse to do that.
|
| In the same vein, asking people to override the information
| their eyes and brain give them and instead believe into
| whatever alternate reality you demand them to see (like
| pretending you are a woman if you are a man) is also
| disrespectful and downright abusive.
| Throw6away wrote:
| Wow, I'm gobsmacked at your example. Are you really arguing
| that transgender people are somehow abusing and
| disrespecting others by asking to be acknowledged as they
| wish to be? Would you be 'abused' if I mentioned my same-
| sex spouse and it violated your assumed reality?
| kkjjkgjjgg wrote:
| You can ask and it is polite to adhere to the wish, but
| you can not demand it.
|
| Ultimately you have no right to intrude on my brain,
| sorry.
|
| "Would you be 'abused' if I mentioned my same-sex spouse
| and it violated your assumed reality?"
|
| Probably not because I could see that your spouse has the
| same sex as you, so it wouldn't violate my perception? I
| don't get the point of your example.
|
| The point of the "publicly state you believe in something
| that is obviously not true" is a symbolic subjugation of
| the person made to do it. It is "swearing in" to the
| ideology. Like Gallileo announcing publicly that the sun
| revolves around the earth.
| teg4n_ wrote:
| I feel sorry for you.
| kkjjkgjjgg wrote:
| I feel sorry for you, too. But have fun memorizing those
| hundreds of instruction manuals.
| jimmyjazz14 wrote:
| This seems less like manual for a person and more a list of
| expectation and demands for how other people should act.
| Aachen wrote:
| Agreed. One thing that just occurred to me is that this title
| does give the author the freedom to entirely dictate the
| contents of a guide on "how other people should act". Nobody
| will disagree with the contents since they say it's a personal
| thing of theirs, though judging by the thread the disagreement
| the title already instills might be worse.
| greybox wrote:
| Interaction is a two way activity. Different team members at my
| workplace interact differently with me than to other people, and
| I with them. That's just down to months of important, casual,
| subtle interaction and boundary setting.
| greybox wrote:
| Although I can see this as a way for a remote manager to break
| the ice with a team
| JabavuAdams wrote:
| This is neat, but it puts a certain spin on your personality that
| might give others pause, even if they would be totally okay with
| working with someone who just behaved as outlined in the doc.
| There's a whiff of being overly prescriptive, and prima-donna-
| ish. Of maybe being Aspergers / on the Autistic spectrum, which
| could be +ve or -ve, depending on who's hiring.
|
| Overall, I think I would like to work with someone who is
| conscientious enough and introspective enough to take the effort
| to make a doc like this. On the other hand, I did have to
| suppress a bit of an eye-roll and I would wonder whether
| contextually they'd be annoying to work with or oblivious to
| subtler contexts and human interactions. But I've written plenty
| of communications that could cause the same questions in someone
| else, so...
| bsuvc wrote:
| To me, it seems a little condescending to be told how to act
| toward someone.
|
| On some level it is helpful to know your teammates, but on the
| other hand it can come across as self centered, like you think
| you're special and require special instructions for interacting
| with.
|
| I'm sure you have good intentions in creating this, but if
| someone gave this to me I would instantly thing "oh man this
| person is going to be high maintenance"
| jacquesm wrote:
| You can drop the 'a little'.
| Bancakes wrote:
| Look at his blog. The only thing he has to show for himself is
| the 100 books he consumed. I'm not saying this as an insult at
| any rate, however I feel he should stop reading and start
| living. Go out and be outwardly with people, live by them.
| Produce, don't consume.
|
| I've been reading a book by Henry C. Link, PhD: Return to
| Religion. Authoring in 1936, this psychologist presents case
| studies of his clients, most of whom are introverts such as OP.
| A good read for anyone interested - this scientist finds in his
| many clients the innate need for a common moral compass and
| belief in higher power, for united communities built on
| families, on selfless extroverts. He becomes Christian again
| not out of faith but necessity, and explains his reasoning.
| edmundsauto wrote:
| You are judging someone's life and directing them to find
| Jesus solely because their _blog_ doesn't communicate how
| rich their life is? JFC, I am so glad that I don't share
| anything of myself in this space.
| uniqueuid wrote:
| Yeah, I got the same feeling - 4/5 of the text is worded as
| global imperatives, and almost nothing puts his own weaknesses
| and peculiarities into context.
|
| It seems like a contract required before interaction rather
| than a helpful guide to understanding him.
|
| That's one of the reasons I liked "Working with Claire" [1]: It
| is full of open subjectivity ("I hope", "I believe"), is very
| clear yet polite ("please ...").
|
| [1]: http://growth.eladgil.com/book/the-role-of-the-
| ceo/insights-...
| ellen364 wrote:
| "Working with Claire" is an interesting comparison. I've been
| trying to think through why I reacted better to it than the
| main article.
|
| Ultimately, "Working with Claire" seems more aimed at me, the
| reader / notional employee. E.g. it starts concrete, talking
| about meetings we'd have together. And it has helpful info
| about how she tends to work and the kinds of things she might
| do. In theory, it means I wouldn't have to work out things
| like "How much info does my new manager expect?"
|
| Self-reflection is a big part of these personal READMEs. But
| it's also important to work out which bits of self-reflection
| are useful to the reader. For me, that's where the main
| article didn't quite hit the mark.
| bavila wrote:
| Without even reading any content, I feel there's a marked
| distinction just in the titles alone.
|
| "Working with Claire" signals: This is an article about
| what it's like to work with me.
|
| "How to work with me" signals: This is a set of rules I
| expect to be followed if we are to get along.
|
| I am just immediately rubbed the wrong way by the latter,
| while I'd be willing to approach the former with an open
| mind.
| teekert wrote:
| Exactly, it would be more valuable if the manual said things
| like:
|
| "I can come across as a dick sometimes but that is because I
| like to test certain stances on issues by vigorously
| defending them, I assure you I'm open to changing my mind if
| you just keep pushing, actually I feel like you are taking my
| intelligence more serious if you do. Not many people
| appreciate this, but somehow discussion makes me feel good"
| or
|
| "I actually can get pretty pissed if I feel that you are
| insulting my intelligence (which I'm sometimes overly
| sensitive to), it is where I seem to get my sense of self
| worth from. I may over-argue my point of view then later
| realize you were right and apologize." or
|
| "I act all cool and hipster but I'm actually constantly
| stressed when I travel and it makes me make poor choices and
| not pay attention to important things like 'Did I take my
| pass from the ATM 15 min ago?'." or
|
| "I'm very shitty at keeping context in mind and often jump on
| the wrong details in a conversation, please have some
| patience." or
|
| "I really really cannot agree to disagree, it keeps nagging
| at me, I want to talk it out until someone "wins". Yeah I've
| been called a dick for that." or
|
| "I get stuck where there is no obvious best choice in just
| about any situation because I cannot make a choice based on
| gut feeling (it feels like weakness), I need logic and it
| makes me swing back and forth on questions like 'subway or
| Uber?', really annoying when you travel with me." or
|
| "I do appreciate jokes that are slightly inappropriate, and I
| feel like often at work I have to self-censor."
|
| "I'm 40 but I like 9gag and memes."
| jfengel wrote:
| Or you could just sum it all up as "I'm deeply unpleasant,
| and I'd say that I'm sorry that you have to work with me,
| but I actually don't have any interest in your emotional
| state."
| teekert wrote:
| :) Well, there is a kernel of truth in all of them, but I
| think my colleagues are quite fond of me nonetheless. I
| think that I have my analytical mind to thank for that
| more than my innate capacity for detecting and dealing
| with emotions in others though (never mind my own).
| sdoering wrote:
| Wow. Thanks. Need to bookmark this. You seem to know me.
| closewith wrote:
| Agreed - this is the most egocentric approach I've come across
| for dealing with colleagues. I'd love to know what his co-
| workers think of him.
| kjs3 wrote:
| I agree. I showed it to a couple of teammates and the universal
| opinion was that if someone handed us something this pedantic,
| we'd be making sure to minimize _any_ interaction with or
| reliance on this person. Especially reliance on...I can only
| see an endless variety of "you didn't read my required
| document and interact with me strictly in my self-approved
| manner, therefore I feel entitled to ignore you/condescend to
| you some more/report you to HR/ruin your day (or whatever
| negative I deem appropriate)". Life is too short.
| willcipriano wrote:
| The corporate language is a turn off. If we are dealing with
| human problems, the sterile corporate speak isn't going to get
| us to a solution.
| n_time wrote:
| I think it's actually [Euro
| English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_English)
| davidbauer wrote:
| Can you point to specific examples? This is very much a
| living document, always looking for ways to improve it.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| It's impersonal, sterile, generic (what does a corporate
| word like "excellence" actually mean in practice?), and
| simultaneously intrusive and lacking in empathy for
| readers.
|
| What you have written is actually _a list of demands._
|
| Not likes. Not tendencies. Not polite requests. Not values
| you hope to share with others by meeting them half way,
| possibly clumsily but with good faith.
|
| Demands.
|
| There is no social context in which a document like this is
| appropriate.
| willcipriano wrote:
| The "My expectations when we work together" looks like it's
| copied directly from a HR boilerplate example somewhere. It
| sounds nice but I wouldn't know how to action any of that.
|
| Also if you are my peer, you setting expectations like that
| is inappropriate.
| davidbauer wrote:
| Thanks!
| PlugTunin wrote:
| <It sounds nice but I wouldn't know how to action any of
| that.>
|
| I'd rather work with someone who's honest about how they
| operate than with someone who uses action as a verb.
| criddell wrote:
| I believe it's probably a typo. My guess is "act on" was
| intended.
| zerocrates wrote:
| Saying "action," purposely, as a verb like that is
| somewhat common. It's business-speak much like "leverage"
| as a verb, though that one's become so common as to go
| unnoticed.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Try to bring it down to 10 lines or less. Your presumption
| to the attention and memorization of this document is way
| over the top. If you feel like you have to communicate
| something like this in writing you could at least be
| charitable and pare it down to the absolute minimum.
|
| Other than that: the whole thing comes across as hopelessly
| naive with respect to how humans interact, it misses the
| fact that people that dislike each other on a personal
| level may be forced to work with one another and it misses
| the 'office politics' angle.
|
| If I was assigned to a team to work with you and you handed
| me this document I would in turn hand in my resignation
| with reference to your document and that would be that, any
| organization that tolerates this kind of bs is not one that
| I would want to work for.
| keithnz wrote:
| change the whole thing to be about you, almost a trouble
| shooting manual, not some idealised world of of your
| interpersonal interactions. Pretty much tell people what
| your personality is like, what you are trying to improve,
| and possible problems people might have with you
| microtherion wrote:
| I did not get that impression from the text at all -- I wonder
| whether it was revised or whether it is because I am Swiss
| myself so maybe it fits within MY norms.
|
| In particular, I did not get the impression that the text makes
| any demands from co-workers that the author would not mutually
| grant them himself.
|
| Can you point out specific examples of language you found self
| centered or high maintenance?
| davidbauer wrote:
| I slightly revised it based on feedback from this thread
| here.
| bsuvc wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20220329121626/https://www.david.
| ..
| davidbauer wrote:
| Points taken. Will try to work on a second version that will
| keep in mind how this came across to you (and others in this
| thread).
| dessant wrote:
| I've skimmed your post, and I honestly feel like the content
| is not the main issue here, but the fact that it was written
| and published. You could share how you prefer to interact
| with people _if the need arises_ , preferably by addressing
| them directly about the points that are relevant for your
| interactions, and without giving them the impression that
| you've handed in a list of preferences.
| davidbauer wrote:
| That's a good point, yes. I didn't intend to publish it
| first, but put it out there to learn from the feedback I'm
| getting. It's interesting how differently people who don't
| know me (see this entire discussion here) react compared to
| people who know me or have worked with me before. That's
| super helpful since future co-workers will most likely fall
| in the first group.
| closewith wrote:
| It's also possible the reactions you get from the second
| group are muted because they naturally don't want to
| offend you.
| mike_d wrote:
| Whatever you do, please leave it up. Documents like this
| are extremely valuable red flags for future coworkers.
| JabavuAdams wrote:
| Yes! The fact that someone would write a doc like this for
| their own introspection and growth - great! The fact that
| you would publish it or supply it as a prelude to
| interaction - weeeird. But again, I've made similar gaffes.
| Will probably make more.
| uniqueuid wrote:
| Thanks! By the way, it might help people if the frame of
| reference was clear.
|
| Did you write this for your managing role at NZZ? Or as a
| freelancer? Or ...?
| etrautmann wrote:
| I had this reaction to the title, but reading the piece after
| I found it to be general points for all interactions among
| people rather than particular instructions for interacting
| with you (which I agree would be off-putting).
| [deleted]
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| To play devil's advocate, the concept is only as condescending
| as a resume or nutrition label is. To an extent, this is
| already done when introducing oneself and (at least in my
| collegiate experience) one's pronouns and triggers. Perhaps
| your feelings reflect your personal criteria for unnecessary
| information rather than anything objectively condescending?
|
| Now speaking for myself, I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I
| would certainly like an efficient and upfront method to assess
| a person's capabilities and mental state without having to
| waste time with pleasantries or wade through a social mine
| field. The more information the better.
|
| On the other hand, it's likely that this personal resume of
| sorts will be another layer of buzzwords and prattle to muck
| through as composing one evolves from a discovery process to a
| status competition.
|
| Let's stick to business cards, shall we?
| MisterTea wrote:
| > I'm sure you have good intentions in creating this, but if
| someone gave this to me I would instantly thing "oh man this
| person is going to be high maintenance"
|
| Sounds like a lot like on-line dating profiles.
| andi999 wrote:
| I like it. Not 100% sure if this person is really like that
| (which seems nice), or if this is Sheldon Cooper.
| emmelaich wrote:
| One of my favourites is
|
| > _Don't give clues: I sometimes miss clues, many people do.
| Don't give clues. Tell me what you need._
|
| So important when we're context switching all the time.
| ifokiedoke wrote:
| Like many others I don't love the idea of a "How to work with me"
| manual because -- like much of this one -- they can come off as a
| one-way directive. However, context matters.
|
| If a random person on my team or the manager of some other team
| handed this to me? No, no, and no. Huge red flag. But if I was
| joining a team for the first time and my manager handed me a
| manual of expectations and made it clear what they value, what
| they expect, and how they see the world, that would be a treasure
| trove for my career. After all, managing my career is essentially
| managing my manager.
|
| That being said, this document... isn't that. I appreciate the
| intent, but like many have said, it can be a little self-
| indulgent :)
| sdoering wrote:
| Title editorialized. Original title is "How to work with me".
|
| To quote dang from 12 hours ago: > It's against the HN guidelines
| to editorialize titles like this. Please see
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Please use the
| original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't
| editorialize."
| blfr wrote:
| Then again HN would automatically remove the 'how' from the
| title, making it even worse.
| codetrotter wrote:
| OP is the author. When an author submits the item to HN it is
| common to do like here, writing a HN specific title for the
| submission that is different from the title on the page itself.
| keithnz wrote:
| I like the idea, but this manual is not very good. It told me
| almost nothing about the person. Instead it seemed to sound a bit
| like a corporate manifesto of how one should conduct oneself.
| iovrthoughtthis wrote:
| the premises and all good to know sections are useful. the other
| sections are too prescriptive as to other peoples behaviour to be
| useful.
|
| it reads more like a guide on working for you, less a guide for
| working with you.
|
| these should give people the context and "why" of working with
| you, not the prescriptive steps required.
|
| the use of "we" everywhere is the tell here. the readme is about
| you, not me.
| davidbauer wrote:
| Thanks, that's useful feedback. Will use it for overhauling the
| doc.
| alex_suzuki wrote:
| TL,DR; Seriously, who do you expect to read this?
| thomasfromcdnjs wrote:
| A lot of dissenters, I really liked it!
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| This is like those personal READMEs, they try to present some
| sort of predictability for a human, who typically is inconsistent
| and emotional, coloured by what the strive to be or how they see
| themselves vs. the reality.
|
| This document is written for the author and don't provide much
| value to the reader.
| thenerdhead wrote:
| These are becoming a trend and I think they can be useful if they
| are sincere like the one here. Especially as a way to onboard to
| new projects or teams in a remote/hybrid world.
|
| The challenge I've seen regarding user manuals however is that
| people immediately discount them. They aren't willing to sit down
| and think about how they want to operate as an individual. So
| they poorly write one instead of giving it effort. Managers think
| it's burdensome and don't take the time to even read them.
| Lastly, those who write down how they want to operate sometimes
| do not operate in their integrity. They ultimately have to live
| with it, but it does create confusion when you give someone
| feedback based on their user manual and it's not well received.
|
| As a career-long remote employee. I think it's a beautiful
| initiative if given the time and thought.
|
| This specific user manual screams product manager having issues
| with engineering manager counterpart.
| ushakov wrote:
| nobody who's employed has time to sit down and write a page
| like that
|
| it just screams desperation
| was_a_dev wrote:
| I can see them being useful, but honestly, this manual is too
| long. Give me the quick start guide
|
| I don't want to learn 35 rules and their context. Give me the
| five most important points that make you tick.
| thenerdhead wrote:
| Yeah this user manual goes a bit too deep. It could easily be
| 1/3 the size and focus on what you said.
|
| I think the author forgot to include the "me" part of these
| sections as generalized tips are not personal. EX: how to
| give me feedback -> 3 ways I enjoy getting feedback.
| davidbauer wrote:
| Good point, thanks.
| patrickwalton wrote:
| Based on a misreading of the title, I thought this was going to
| be about organizing what you've learned about other people and
| how to remember the things that are important to them. That would
| be really cool.
| vhiremath4 wrote:
| Can anyone here give me an honest review of the doc I send people
| who reach out to me who I don't know? I definitely want to know
| if this doc comes off as condescending.
|
| https://vinay.notion.site/If-you-want-to-work-with-me-at-Loo...
| alex504 wrote:
| To be honest (as you asked for), it does come off as
| egotistical and a bit condescending. I would remove the "Thank
| you and sorry" and "The bar is high because my word carries
| weight" sections. The tone of sentences like "I'm insanely
| lucky to be where I am today", and "My word carries weight" is
| a bit self-aggrandizing.
|
| Without those sections I think the rest is fine. If you want to
| introduce the whole thing to explain why it's necessary I would
| entirely leave yourself out of it because it comes off as self
| aggrandizing. I would just write something like, "I appreciate
| your interest in working at Loom. I can't simply pass your
| resume on if you contact me, because it isn't fair to my hiring
| manager. It makes it easier for everyone when I provide the
| below information up front because its saves us both time".
| vhiremath4 wrote:
| Thank you for the feedback! Gonna work on a new revision.
| pie42000 wrote:
| Comes off as very silly and insecure. It seems like it's
| written purely for you to curate your professional persona and
| to give people a good impression of yourself. A corporate kool-
| aid drinking work-a-holics version of a Twitter bio, just
| needlessly long and self-indulgent. At least Twitter bios are
| limited in length.
|
| If you actually cared about the recipients of this document it
| would be half a page or shorter and have bullet points of your
| biggest weaknesses or eccentricities and other actionable info.
| You aren't Napoleon, nobody needs to read more than a half page
| about you, especially when most of what you have to say is
| meaningless corporate jargon.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Given that this is a completely different context, one where
| someone is still outside the org and trying to get your
| attention to become their advocate it is a totally different
| vibe from TFA.
|
| I don't see how 'humble, hungry and smart' will go together in
| most applicants, you'll be lucky to have one out of three,
| extremely happy to get two and all three is usually a question
| of broken self assessment.
|
| Adding 'hungry' also seems to select for people in need, giving
| you an advantage over them in negotiations. As for humility:
| you will not find it in most sub 40 year olds, they don't know
| what they don't know yet. So this might cause good candidates
| to back out.
|
| Finally, the extra heading 'We cannot hire within these
| countries' is superfluous, it is already covered by the
| previous heading.
|
| hth.
| vhiremath4 wrote:
| Thanks for the feedback on humble, hungry, and smart. Tbh I
| do find that most people at Loom exhibit all 3 of these
| traits, but I could definitely be totally off due to people
| likely changing their behavior whenever I'm in a room or
| having a conversation with them (e.g. people on their best
| behavior).
|
| > As for humility: you will not find it in most sub 40 year
| olds, they don't know what they don't know yet
|
| This is interesting and very different from my experience. I
| feel like humility is actually the hardest thing to find in
| anyone (controlled for age and all). I haven't actually seen
| a clear trend line between humility and age.
|
| > Adding 'hungry' also seems to select for people in need,
| giving you an advantage over them in negotiations.
|
| Interesting I never really thought about it like this. Do you
| associate "hungry" with "desperate"? I've always seen them as
| completely distinct, but, if enough people see them as
| closely related, I probably should figure out how to qualify
| this.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I don't know the other people at Loom, so I'm modeling you
| after your typical scale-up with talented young people, the
| likes of which I see every other week or so on average, but
| it is definitely possible that Loom is in a different order
| all by itself.
|
| Also, keep in mind that my viewpoint is Euro-centric and
| that just that alone could easily qualify to make up the
| difference.
|
| As for terminology, eager might be a better term than
| hungry.
| vhiremath4 wrote:
| We hire people in the EU, so I definitely want your
| perspective!
|
| > As for terminology, eager might be a better term than
| hungry. So funny, I associate eager more with
| "desperate". Maybe this is a US vs. EU sorta thing. I'm
| going to noodle on this - thank you!
| tomrod wrote:
| I've heard of team strategy and working agreements, but never
| unilateral demands.
| clpm4j wrote:
| I'm not against these types of documents in theory... I can see
| the use. But anecdotally, the two coworkers who've provided me
| with 'How to Work with Me' docs have been the most difficult,
| overly detailed micromanagers that I've interacted with. And on
| the other hand, all of the great colleagues I've worked with have
| just been personable, talented people who didn't come with an
| operating manual.
| watwut wrote:
| It seems kinda one sided:
|
| > People prefer different channels of communication, often
| depending on context. Don't communicate in the way that's most
| convenient to you. Always consider whom you're communicating with
| and what their needs and context might be.
|
| Sure, but my needs should be somewhere in the equation too. If we
| are peers, it is reasonable to expect them to be as important as
| yours.
|
| > I try to truly understand a position before arguing against it.
| Ask questions. Repeat back what I understood to be their point.
|
| Does not leave space for you accepting someone elses position.
| Also, if primary reason you ask me questions is so that you can
| argue against, then it does not sound like symmetric cooperative
| debate seeking solution. Instead, it sounds like debate club
| where one needs to win by creating gotchas.
|
| Again, I am back to one sided. There are a lot of expectations
| for other person to understand and tolerate your peculiarities.
| But little about you trying to actually understand them.
| vincentmarle wrote:
| I have worked with a few of these "readme" managers, and frankly,
| they are the worst people to deal with :)
|
| I think it's very telling that this person says they're an
| introvert because people who have a need to write a manual for
| themselves are likely lacking in people skills (and probably
| shouldn't be managers).
| sytelus wrote:
| Either this dude has gone through a lot or has few mental health
| issues.
| [deleted]
| account-5 wrote:
| If someone handed me this when I first started working with them
| I wouldn't read it. If I was forced to I'd resent it, and them. I
| have a hard time imagining why you'd present this to a random
| you'd never met before, let alone someone you knew.
| beardyw wrote:
| I am often out of my depth so please be kind to me. I will try to
| be kind to you.
|
| The end.
| escapedmoose wrote:
| Aside from the reflexive "yikes, dude" that this gives me, I
| wouldn't trust the content itself. A manual written by someone
| who's worked with you for years would be far more valuable. But
| my first impression of a person who hands me something like this
| is going to be "what past interpersonal disasters have you
| wrought that led you to put time into something like this?"
|
| ...case in point is a current coworker of mine, who gave me
| something like a verbal version of this manual when we started
| working together. He almost immediately began acting completely
| opposite to what he said. Turns out his spiel was more
| aspirational than honest. Seems like he was trying to convince me
| to like him before his behavior steered me in the other
| direction. Not that I can't work with the guy, but I had to learn
| my own ways to get around his quirks--ways which were certainly
| not outlined in his introduction.
| klabb3 wrote:
| I know there are some who do these things with honest intents,
| but I must agree with you based on experience...
|
| I saw this primarily with managers and higher-ups who clearly
| used this as some form of pre-emptive signaling device, kinda
| like a Twitter Bio. It's creating a paper trail that serves
| your narrative in performance reviews, often indirectly through
| priming or "anchoring" people with an early impression. It
| ticks all the boxes - yet it doesn't come in a format that's
| usually under scrutiny - "why would anyone deceive in a user
| manual?". It's catnip for middle management.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Did you give him this kind of feedback after some time passed
| and thing crystalized? It may be unpleasant to hear since it
| ruins his self-image, but as person who actually made the
| effort and tried to put together some, even if flawed, self-
| manual... he may appreciate the honesty/bravery on your side
| and content, at least in long run.
| escapedmoose wrote:
| I would consider doing so, if not for the power structure at
| play. His opinion of me has a lot of influence on whether I
| get a paycheck or not, so unfortunately that's not a risk I
| can take.
| emmelaich wrote:
| The title is off-putting but I can't fault the text.
|
| In reference to your coworker, at least you can suggest to him
| where his behaviour deviates from his ideal? Seems much better
| than starting from scratch.
| karmelapple wrote:
| I think there's an important distinction between this and one
| post the author mentions he was inspired by, the "How to Rands"
| post [1].
|
| From How to Rands:
|
| > The following is a user guide for me and how I work. It
| captures what you can expect out of the average week working
| with me, how I like to work, my north star principles, and some
| of my, uh, nuance. My intent is to accelerate our working
| relationship with this document.
|
| "How to Rands" is not saying "you need to do this to work with
| me." Rather, it's describing some of his preferences, behavior,
| etc.
|
| I think a rename of OP's title from "How to work with me" to
| "How I like to work" or even just "About how I work" might more
| clearly communicate the author's original intent. (if I
| understand David's intent correctly, that is!)
|
| [1] https://randsinrepose.com/archives/how-to-rands/
| _moof wrote:
| _> I respond poorly to being told what to do ("Rands, do
| X.")_
|
| This is a joke, right?
| drewcoo wrote:
| I don't think Rands often tells people what to do. I think
| he's more likely to nudge.
|
| https://randsinrepose.com/archives/three-superpowers/
| [deleted]
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| I would 1) rename it to "how I work with you" and 2) reframe it
| like that
|
| Make it "you-focused" toward colleagues. A lot of the pushback
| this is receiving here is because it's "me-focused" about OP.
| n_time wrote:
| 1. I am cranky on Wednesdays. I'm sorry. I'll try to do better -
| but Thursday or Tuesday are probably better.
| cosmopaladin wrote:
| Very clear, and helpful. Tells me exactly what I needed to know.
| That I shouldn't work with you.
| pojzon wrote:
| I feel like great devs value the same things.
|
| Ive read what author values and instantly knew we would cooperate
| well.
|
| I would also add one more thing:
|
| I value the quality of work we do. I try to always deliver the
| best work I can, but if deadlines are short and we know we are
| not able deliver quality solution on time -> at least document
| what can be improved later and why it was not done in the first
| place.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| I really like personal manuals. My partners seem to appreciate
| them, too.
| mvkel wrote:
| This comes directly from the High Growth Handbook, which was
| originally drafted by Claire Hughes Johnson, COO Stripe.[0]
|
| [0] https://growth.eladgil.com/book/the-role-of-the-
| ceo/insights...
| Barrera wrote:
| I think a lot of the negative reaction to this article comes from
| the title, which does sound condescending and at least a little
| odd. Here are some alternative titles that might not get clicks
| but also won't prompt a visceral reaction:
|
| - On Work
|
| - Some Thoughts on Work
|
| - Thoughts on Collaboration (then take yourself out of it)
|
| Another idea, just expand one of the points into its own
| document. I found the part on async communication especially
| interesting because in some ways it goes against a lot of
| conventional wisdom. Some anecdotes, details, or sociological
| research on the topic would make a pretty helpful document.
|
| The content is different in spirit from the implication of the
| title, IMO. A document with this title is an unusual way to begin
| a collaboration or working relationship. On the other hand, I can
| see how it would be useful to know what's _inside_ the document.
|
| And it takes guts to write something like this, knowing that
| everyone who reads it and knows you will be comparing their own
| mental notes on how you actually work with how you say you work
| and view yourself.
| Trasmatta wrote:
| I'm somewhat nervous that some exec at my company will see stuff
| like this and then mandate that everyone at the company make one.
| humblepie wrote:
| How to work with me: Grab a beer (or your favorite drink). Tilt
| back, enjoy the sun.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I think there's some nice points in there, but it keeps switching
| between "how to work with _me_ ," and "how to work with _others_
| " (maybe me, maybe not me).
|
| For myself, I feel that the posts I put up here (on HN) give a
| fairly decent idea of what I'm like, but it's been my experience
| that folks will interpret them to fit whatever narrative they
| choose (often, unflattering to me).
|
| I think the only way that we'd figure out how we'd work together,
| would be to ... you know ... _work together_ ... for a while.
| francasso wrote:
| I won't hold back (as you asked): it seems to me that the most
| likely reason someone would write something like this is if they
| had a lot of bad experiences that they ascribe to failures in the
| principles described in the document. I think it's unlikely that
| most people would read this, or even if they did that they would
| use it to guide their interactions with you.
|
| The document also makes you sound like a condescending person to
| me (though it's difficult to judge without knowing the greater
| context).
|
| If my analysis is correct, a different way around the bad
| experiences is to detach from them and learn to recognize the
| unfortunate situations as they come up early on. But if they are
| too frequent the problem could be your attitude.
| Lamad123 wrote:
| I will not work with you!!! You should include this document in a
| job interview to help waste applicants time.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| I love the idea of these. Last time I heard of them I sat down to
| write one and couldnt get through more than 1 or 2 points before
| feeling like it was a incredibly self indulgent exercise that
| wouldnt actually be helpful to anyone.
|
| I couldnt imagine sharing this with a coworker. Even if I did, I
| cant imagine they would read all of it and internalize it. Most
| people act how they act. They may adjust their behavior slightly
| when interacting with you but they are not going to adopt a whole
| new communication style or something complex just to work better
| with you.
|
| The only person I feel like I could share this with without
| feeling like an ass would be my direct manager. And typically I
| have a similar conversation with them during one on ones in the
| first 6 months of working there.
|
| But at the end of the day its a compromise. Managers are often
| good at managing and motivating in MAYBE one way. If your way of
| ideally being managed or motivated doesnt align with theirs then
| you will both have to find some middle ground. Or change
| teams/managers/companies.
| mplanchard wrote:
| I completely agree, and I felt the same way when we had to do
| these for a previous job. The whole process felt _embarassing_,
| honestly. And, in practice, just like you said, people just act
| how they act, and interactions with people were shaped
| infinitely more by that than by the user manuals, which afaik
| were never referenced by anyone once written.
|
| I might appreciate being able to read this as a manager, and I
| would take what insight I could glean from it as a coworker.
| However, even as someone who tries hard to adapt my natural
| method of interaction to other people, I can't imagine their
| poorly self-descriptive document is going to be more useful
| than a month of direct contact and honest communication.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| We did these at a previous company. I liked it in theory. In
| practice, though, it created way too much mental load and I often
| felt distracted by it. The ultimate challenge seems to stem from
| the "direction of need" when actual business needs to happen.
|
| When somebody has a challenge and is reaching out, it adds an
| unnecessary level of complexity for them to communicate their
| problem while translating it into the form that the receiver
| prefers. Often, the reason they're reaching out in the first
| place is a lack of understanding about a problem. Adding the
| translation step often makes it harder for them to communicate,
| rather than more effective.
|
| -----
|
| I've also found that these documents both conflict with reality
| and are made redundant by people's actions.
|
| * When people are writing these, they often write them from an
| aspirational aspect. They view their preferences through the way
| they'd ideally like to work, rather than the way they actually
| work.
|
| * The major relationship pieces in these working with me docs
| become extremely obvious quickly.
|
| As a manager, I enjoy these for new hires. They help me
| calibrate, but over time it simply becomes about the relationship
| and history that you've built up.
| mplanchard wrote:
| We also did these at a previous company. The process made me
| fairly uncomfortable, because it felt very egocentric and
| unrealistic. And in my experience everyone just ignored them
| and interacted with each other in the normal patterns that
| would have developed anyway.
|
| If you prefer people to interact with you a certain way, you're
| going to have to remind them of it regularly regardless. And if
| you want people to understand why you interact a certain way
| with them, you're going to have to explain it in context when
| it happens. Ultimately our relationships are formed by our
| shared experiences and our lived reality, and no amount of
| referring to a document will change that.
|
| I could definitely see how this would be useful for a manager,
| but in the context of writing one to be public for my fellow
| employees to read I did not enjoy the experience.
| pid-1 wrote:
| That's really useful, now your coworkers will know beforehand you
| are a narcissist and hard to deal with.
| Karupan wrote:
| While the idea is interesting, I imagine this would increase the
| friction in team interactions. And if everyone in the team have
| their own "manual" (which is only fair), you pretty much need a
| cheat sheet just to keep up. To me, that takes away the
| spontaneity in interactions, which is something I'm sure we all
| sorely miss after two years of lockdowns.
| mishkovski wrote:
| Good, like I don't have enough complexity to deal with every
| workday, so I need one more thing to read and consider. No, what
| I need is quiet and less of everything. When we start working
| together we will learn how to work together. And I would not take
| into account your opinions about yourself and how you work, only
| your deeds. Because something happened which unleashed the power
| of our imagination. We learned to talk.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| > We can't be successful together if we're aiming for different
| outcomes. If one of us feels our goals or motives aren't aligned,
| we need to talk.
|
| That is actually not true. When building a team it is important
| to learn what each individual seeks out of the "project". For
| example your goal might be to use the project as a way to get
| promoted. I might not care at all about getting promoted and
| instead my goal is to learn new stuff. Our colleague might be
| using the project as a way to push some new technology into
| broader acceptance in the company. Our other colleagues goal
| might be to bail half way through because they never wanted to be
| on the project in the first place. All four of us have different
| motivations and personal goals for this project--and that is
| totally okay!
|
| It isn't a good idea to assume everybody has the same goal. It
| _is_ a good idea to at least address this in the beginnings of
| team building. Knowing that you are trying to get a promo out of
| this would help me help you get that promo.
| lostcolony wrote:
| You're aiming for the same outcome in that example; it's just
| that your incentives for it aren't the same. That's okay.
|
| Oftentimes different incentives imply different outcomes,
| though. I've been in environments where product's incentives
| were not "enable dev to get to work" but instead "create
| documentation/slide decks for upper management". So they were
| busy as hell, creating artifacts that did not help dev identify
| what problem they were solving (let alone what solutions might
| look like), and were extremely successful based on what they
| cared about, but meant that the dev teams had very little time
| or direction to be successful with, leading to low morale and
| high rates of burnout.
|
| In the example you provide, if that leads to one person going
| off to play with new stuff while the rest of the team is
| focused on the project, that's a problem. Likewise if the
| person wanting to get promoted insists on taking on all the
| high visibility work (or worse, just taking credit for it),
| that creates a problem. As long as the desired outcome is the
| same and you can create a path towards it that aligns with
| everyone's incentives (project succeeds, people get recognized
| for their contributions, we use some new stuff along the way)
| you can be successful.
| danjc wrote:
| Sounds like the author is practically perfect in every way!
| docandrew wrote:
| I was hoping this would be more like a car or airplane manual.
| "Failure to maintain adequate vitamin C levels may cause scurvy.
| Go to service center if this happens. Maintain blood pressure
| within limits (see specifications)." Etc.
| mkaic wrote:
| might have to write this now, that's hilarious lol
| ushakov wrote:
| this would be actually entertaining and won't sound like a
| demand
| charles_f wrote:
| I think it would be more useful if it were more concise and
| practical.
|
| > tl;dr Trust + Ownership + Mindful communication = Win
|
| the tl;dr doesn't tell you anything.
|
| The rest tries to reform the other person rather than indicate
| preferences. I would be more ok with one that says: - I prefer
| emails to meetings. Don't invite me to meetings that could be
| emails - I decline meetings without an agenda. - respect my time
| and don't double book me. If you double book me, I may not come,
| dont act surprised. - I voice my opinions and sometimes it might
| sound harsh. You can voice yours and I won't take it personally
| pocketsand wrote:
| There's a deep irony in this document. Explaining it, I fear,
| would be way too mean to the author.
| [deleted]
| falcolas wrote:
| Counter point: I've written and consumed user manuals both in my
| private and professional life, and they're really very useful.
|
| - It's a great ice breaker into the things they're actually
| interested in.
|
| - Some people have a particular way they want to be addressed.
| Pamela, never Pam. Put it in one place and you're golden.
| (Ideally, someone would be able to put it as their Slack or Email
| handle and also be golden, but those are not always in the user's
| control at a company)
|
| - How's the best way to get your attention if it's urgent? If
| it's not urgent but still time sensitive? If I want to make sure
| not to disturb you?
|
| - What's your biggest office pet peeve (it's chewing ice for me;
| some people never realize that it could bug someone else)
|
| - It's an easy and intentional way to disseminate your work
| history to your colleagues, who most likely won't have way to
| view it otherwise. (For example, knowing someone was a DBA gives
| you a potential point of contact for related questions)
| npsimons wrote:
| I mean honestly, there's a whole bunch of shit that is
| considered "normal" in the work world that just should not be
| the way it is. The quarantines really opened (some) peoples'
| eyes to the reality that a lot of workplace "culture" is utter
| bullshit.
|
| I could see a lot of people who are complaining here about TFA
| whinging 70 years ago when their secretary might push back on
| being sexually harassed.
|
| Yeah, the document could have been written a bit better, but
| having open and honest communication about how to put people at
| ease and ensure they will be at optimal performance levels just
| seems like a good idea.
| Spinnaker_ wrote:
| It's missing the most important section: "Known Bugs".
|
| I don't think the average person knows themselves well enough to
| write a user manual, myself included. This is an idealized
| version of how he thinks about himself. Reality could be very
| different.
|
| I'd be much more interested in a guide written by his wife or
| parents.
| davidbauer wrote:
| Like the idea :-)
| bsuvc wrote:
| Yes!
|
| Put this on GitHub and let your co workers submit issues for
| the problems they have with you and pull requests for changes
| they want you to make.
|
| I'm starting to like this instruction manual idea more and more
| now ;)
| davidbauer wrote:
| Lots of merge conflicts guaranteed :-) Jokes aside, this is
| exactly what this should be: a living document and a starting
| point for discussions.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| Worth linking to Richard Stallman's rider:
| https://gizmodo.com/please-do-not-buy-richard-stallman-a-par...
| teddyh wrote:
| At least Richard Stallman is an actual celebrity, of sorts, and
| goes on lecture tours. Have you seen the riders of big bands?
| They are formatted exactly the same way; do this, don't do
| this, etc. People who have never seen these kinds of documents
| assume instead a personal relationship context, where this kind
| of language would be horrifying. But this would be assuming a
| personal relationship, where this is instead aimed at more
| business-like relationship of hoster and featured speaker. This
| document should be compared to the likes of "no brown M&Ms".
| lkbm wrote:
| I think this sort of document is a good idea, but skimming over
| it, I think it needs to shift to more of a two-way description.
| The "How to discuss and argue" section does this. The "How to
| efficiently work and communicate with me" section not so much.
| Looking at these items:
|
| > Default to action. Often it's best to just do it. Most
| decisions are reversible, so it's better to see how things work
| out instead of overthinking them.
|
| > Act like an owner: Make your own decisions when you're
| confident enough. Solve issues yourself when you can. If you need
| support or want your ideas challenged, I am always there to help.
|
| These are good, but doesn't address the reason people don't do
| this: they anticipate getting in trouble for making a decision
| their boss or peers disagree with. I'd recommend re-framing this
| as a semi-formal commitment about how you'll respond.
|
| "You should make decisions on your own" is often secretly "...but
| if they're not the decision I would have made, I'll be mad". To
| count this, you need to explicitly promise not to respond that
| way. "If I disagree with your decision, I'll address it, but I
| won't hold it against you for taking the initiative even when I
| would have chosen differently."
|
| Basically, make it more two-sided: "I prefer you to follow these
| guidelines when in interacting with me and I commit to [trying
| to] response in these specific ways."
|
| In some cases it's not necessary. I like nohello.net and don't
| think it needs to spell out "I won't get mad if you don't open
| with a hello". But when telling people to do things that may get
| them scolded, you need to promise not to scold them.
| mplanchard wrote:
| I don't think these kinds of documents are particularly useful
| unless they are to-the-point explanations of things about the
| person that significantly differ from the norm, which someone
| might actually have a shot at remembering in practice.
|
| For example, "I love direct feedback. Please don't sugar coat
| things with me." or "I am sometimes very direct and it comes
| across as rude. That is never my intention, so please feel free
| to call me out on it when it happens."
|
| Even that though is less useful than the constant work of
| difficult, honest communication that is actually required to
| shape your interaction patterns with others. I worry that user
| manuals might be used to absolve oneself of that work.
|
| This document is a nice piece describing the environment the
| author wants to work in, in my opinion, rather than being a user
| manual for the author. Maybe reframing it that way would engender
| a better response in readers.
|
| All that said though, the response here is often verging into the
| downright cruel, and I am disgusted by a lot of it. Many folks
| are making sweeping proclamations about this person's personality
| or character and/or directly attacking the author. I think there
| are things to critique here, but it's hasty as hell to assume
| that this document gives you enough to judge an entire person,
| and a whole other thing to rip that person down with insults.
| jdowner wrote:
| I like it. I thought it was pretty calm and reasonable. Maybe
| some things could be worded a little better, but I'm not sure why
| there are so many strong, negative reactions about it.
| andersco wrote:
| My boss at my previous company created one of these with the
| intention of being "helpful". It basically stated you should
| address me in this manner, use this form of communication etc. I
| asked him if he would be ok with me also creating a similar user
| manual telling him how I should be communicated with. He said it
| would be ok, as long as it did not contradict his user manual.
|
| IMO, these seem to me to be a friendly way of dictating process
| to others.
| davidbauer wrote:
| Tongue-in-cheek title aside, I really do believe that it's
| helpful if a lot of people do write down some sort of user
| manual for themselves. These can be a great starting point for
| having conversations on how to best work together and spot
| potential areas of conflict in advance. In no way should these
| be seen as dictating the rules.
| karmelapple wrote:
| Based on the comments here, I don't think people are getting
| much cheekiness from the title. As I mentioned in another
| comment, it might be useful to change the name, since I think
| a lot of people are seeing "How to work with me" as a pretty
| direct command to "do these X things."
|
| And I don't think you intend that :)
| jimmyjazz14 wrote:
| I probably wouldn't call it a "user manual" since that
| implies a list of the "correct" way to work with a person.
| Why not just call it a list of personal values (and
| preferences)?
| davidbauer wrote:
| Good point, thank you.
| eklavya wrote:
| No idea why, but just looking at the title, I felt a sudden
| distressing omen of a dystopian future, where these are mandated
| and must be followed.
| ahultgren wrote:
| Hey, David! I'm surprised by how many people seem to be confused
| or irritated by you sharing this. I'm imagining that some people
| are hearing a demand that they have to read it, and then they're
| obliged to do as you prefer. And I also see you replying with a
| cheerful "Thanks!" to comments which I find myself judging as
| discompassionate. That inspires me. So I just wanted to say that
| it seems to me like you really value clear communication,
| collaboration, and trust, and that this document is your attempt
| at meeting those needs.
|
| Would you say this is an accurate reflection of what you wanted
| to express sharing it here? Would love to hear it.
| wiz21c wrote:
| I'm sure note confused. The message is clear: the guy says:
| you'll work my way. 'cos you see, there are probably as many
| "user" manual as they are persons. Putting yours forward, full
| of imperative is exactly the opposite of mine.
|
| If you want to work with me, never, ever, use the imperative,
| just ask gently and unless what you're asking is dangerous for
| me, I'll most of the time help you.
|
| I had a boss who told me he was looking for the manual to work
| with me. He was actually looking for user manual, to use me (in
| his word it was not "use", it was "I'll help you to get the
| best of yourself")
|
| Since then, I'll never RTFM again :-)
| causality0 wrote:
| _I'm sometimes slow in expressing what I really feel_
|
| _I sometimes write messages when we should be talking instead. I
| know that's not ideal, I'm working on it. In the meantime, please
| point it out to me._
|
| _I have two small kids at home._
|
| Those are literally the only three useful sentences in that
| entire document. _Everything_ else are the basic virtues of
| professional cooperation.
| richardfey wrote:
| I remember the face my boss made when I told him I would make one
| for me too when he was showcasing his manual. He didn't expect
| that and said it wasn't necessary.
| bsuvc wrote:
| Probably because he just wanted to tell you how to act, not be
| told how he should act toward you.
| andai wrote:
| "Do what I say, not what I do."
| xanaxagoras wrote:
| If I received this I would do my best to steer clear of this
| person. Hopefully you put at least as much effort into acquiring
| social skills as telling people exactly how to communicate with
| you.
| manesioz wrote:
| Yep. Only in tech will people write pages and pages about how
| you should deal with them and what values they demand everyone
| shares. Reeks of entitlement.
| bananamerica wrote:
| I was thinking of doing something like that, but not in a
| professional context. Just a post somewhere, a way to talk about
| my personal quirks in a comedic self-deprecating manner. To be
| quite frank, the way you did it, and in the professioal context
| in which this is framed, no amount of revisions will make you not
| sound like a jerk. This might function in a non-work environment.
|
| I just don't think that's a very good idea. Not because I think
| you wrote anything wrong (you didn't), but that's just not how
| interpersonal relationships work.
|
| Sorry, dude.
| davidbauer wrote:
| Fair. Interesting that you think something like this could work
| in a non-work context, but not in a work-context. Curious: Do
| you have the same reaction to the one by Rands that inspired me
| to write mine? https://randsinrepose.com/archives/how-to-rands/
| [deleted]
| jacquesm wrote:
| Your document makes it seem like this is something original
| that you dreamed up, not that you are copying a concept from
| someone else.
| bananamerica wrote:
| Most of the document you linked is about management
| practices, presumably written by someone in a management
| position. This sets the tone. The last topic is more
| similar to what you wrote, but it is much shorter and to
| the point. _How to Rands_ is framed as a declaration of
| management philosophy, and, as such, sounds entirely
| appropriate. Yours is more personal in nature. If you are
| in a management position, it may be a good idea to let this
| transpire in your writing as well.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I think you replied to the wrong comment.
| bananamerica wrote:
| Oops.Thanks.
| [deleted]
| bananamerica wrote:
| _duplicating my comment because I accidentally answered to
| the wrong person and I can 't delete the other_
|
| Most of the document you linked is about management
| practices, presumably written by someone in a management
| position. This sets the tone. The last topic is more similar
| to what you wrote, but it is much shorter and to the point.
| _How to Rands_ is framed as a declaration of management
| philosophy, and, as such, sounds entirely appropriate. Yours
| is more personal in nature. If you are in a management
| position, it may be a good idea to let this transpire in your
| writing as well.
| [deleted]
| erehweb wrote:
| "How to work with me" sets the wrong tone at the start, giving
| orders. Maybe consider, "How I'd like to work with you", or "How
| we can best work together" or something.
| davidbauer wrote:
| Yes, I think you're right. Thank you for the feedback.
| Aachen wrote:
| They didn't ask if you were ready to receive the feedback!
|
| Joking aside, that thing stood out to me. Would you ever say
| no, isn't it then a social obligation to say yes? Or if you
| do say no, that person is just supposed to leave whatever
| unsaid until a potential future opportunity and in the
| meantime they'll have to still work with you? It seems odd
| from both sides.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-29 23:01 UTC)