[HN Gopher] How to Work Effectively with Someone You Don't Like
___________________________________________________________________
How to Work Effectively with Someone You Don't Like
Author : BerislavLopac
Score : 246 points
Date : 2023-11-29 08:53 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.forbes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.forbes.com)
| atemerev wrote:
| Good points; I am, however, also interested in how to work
| effectively with someone who doesn't like me.
| lacrimacida wrote:
| Send them a link to this page
| xyzelement wrote:
| Probably can troubleshoot a bit. How do you know they don't
| like you? What's your guess as to _why_?
| Supermancho wrote:
| I almost always clash with someone who rather spend the
| team's time trying to do it _right_ (for whatever that means
| to them) as opposed to _sooner_. This is often expressed as
| "making a second change is more time than taking a week to
| think about it carefully the first time".
|
| What's more, the results:
|
| * turns out it's a delaying tactic to avoid doing work
|
| * feature creep
|
| * added complexity, which is brittle (feature has to be
| reworked, nobody is happy)
|
| * constant nitpicking + the assumption that you will adopt
| their higher standards
|
| Is this better? For some projects maybe. At least we have
| alerts that go off every day and nobody pays attention to
| them and multi-tiered shared libraries that result in
| esoteric problems (mostly from package upgrades) that affects
| projects X, but not Y and Z.
|
| Not to say these engineers don't add value, but they are
| daily problems that everyone has to work around. This
| includes product stakeholders.
| Exoristos wrote:
| Do you not have leadership? Whether to ship classy or
| shoddy work sounds like a business decision.
| peteradio wrote:
| How do you work with someone who has no responsibility? Like
| "build fixed boss" with link to failed build.
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| Can you ask for proof?
|
| Tests passing, screenshots/gif of build fix in action, etc
| sevagh wrote:
| If it's anything like companies I've worked at, you stick them
| in an unimportant fiefdom and give them raises, promos, and
| refreshers for decades.
| bvirb wrote:
| If you can afford to and you have a team dynamic where
| "everyone makes mistakes" you can give them more responsibility
| -- like other people being stuck until they actually fix the
| build. But that can backfire if they're very junior or the
| culture is very negative around making mistakes.
|
| Otherwise asking them questions can help. Come from the place
| that you must be missing something and ask them why you can't
| get XYZ to work as expected. Make them figure out what the
| problem is. Really get in the mindset that you're missing
| something though, or it can come off as patronizing.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| Isn't that what PIP is for? Either improve or leave.
|
| Since it sounds like he's doing it on purpose (malicious
| compliance), if it's happening several times already and you've
| already explained to him what the correct process is.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving people second and third
| chances, have a talk with them and see what the problem is,
| maybe they have issues with their health or their personal
| life, but people who engage in malicious compliance because
| they can't be bothered to follow a simple process need to be
| shown the door pronto as that attitude negatively affect the
| whole team.
| donatj wrote:
| Going on a decade ago, I worked with a DBA who would get angry
| and scream about things and often at me because I was one of the
| few willing to butt head's with him. He would want to change
| something in the database schema and I would calmly explain how
| that wouldn't work for the business logic it was representing.
| He'd go on to berate you and the data design.
|
| He was very difficult to work with, but also inarguably one of
| the smartest people I have ever met. I learned so much from him
| that I still use today. We were even relatively friendly outside
| of work topics, talked about our mutual interest in minimalist
| music pretty often.
|
| When he was let go for obvious reasons, I was the strangest
| combination of upset and relieved I have ever experienced.
| a_c wrote:
| Curious to know how is he doing now
| donatj wrote:
| LinkedIn has had him as retired for a bit, but he was a DBA
| for Wells Fargo for years after he left us.
| a_c wrote:
| Thanks for the reply. Was wondering how did future pan out
| for someone talented but hard to work with. Would they have
| a rather tumultuous career, or have their talent recognized
| hence very successful or even if they started their own
| greenthrow wrote:
| The brilliant jerk thing is, in my experience, largely a myth.
| If someone is highly intelligent, they will realize acting like
| a jerk is not helpful and causes them problems, and they will
| correct that behavior. People who persist in acting like a rude
| child beyond college, in my experience, get credited as
| brilliant because people are intimidated by their attitude. But
| if you look at their actual accomplishments and delivered
| value, it will be unimpressive.
| arethuza wrote:
| "The brilliant jerk thing is, in my experience, largely a
| myth."
|
| Not in my experience - I've met a few spectacular examples in
| my career - but I am in my 50s.
| raverbashing wrote:
| I think the "myth" part here is believing this person is a
| net gain in productivity
|
| When in practice some optimization or other gains that
| might be taken by his expertise are offset by just making
| everybody worse at their jobs
| ebiester wrote:
| I feel like their prevalence in tech has decreased in the
| last 10 years in the places I've worked. They are not
| allowed to maintain their bad behavior from my experience,
| or they are drummed out of the organization relatively
| quickly before they get the opportunity to be
| indispensable.
|
| The "bitter old timer" doesn't happen as often anymore
| either, as people generally leave a job before they get too
| bitter due to the opportunities available.
| arethuza wrote:
| There may be something to that - I don't think I've met
| anyone like that in the last 15+ years. Mind you, I might
| have got better at picking better to people to work with.
| charlie0 wrote:
| That's sad because the old timers generally have a lot of
| wisdom to share. They are usually also the ones at that
| stage in life where they are willing to mentor someone.
| civilitty wrote:
| Their prevalence has decreased because there are so many
| other engineers. For every person who was programming in
| the 1990s, there are at least a hundred that started in
| the 2010s and many of the former struck it rich and
| retired. Mentorship can't scale to those numbers.
| ebiester wrote:
| To clarify, I am speaking about seniority at a particular
| company combined with a bitterness toward that company
| because they are trapped. I think having older ICs is
| still incredibly valuable!
| corobo wrote:
| I wonder if this correlates in any way with improvements
| in mental health support (it's not perfect by a long
| shot, but it is better)
|
| In my professional life I've been called a genius, and
| I've been called an asshole. I've never intentionally
| gone out of my way to be either, but it is what it is. A
| decade or so of struggling to get my points across
| without being an asshat about it I discovered I have
| ADHD.
|
| Job security has always come with the ability to really
| deep dive into the things everyone else had trouble
| figuring out. Rejection sensitivity dysphoria seems to
| have been a likely culprit for the asshat side of things
| - I spent all this time figuring out the answer, and they
| aren't listening to me, these people are idiots!
|
| With a bit of medication, a lot of self-help reading, and
| a healthy dose of cognitive behavioural therapy I'm so
| much better at interacting with people, and as a bonus I
| no longer have to bulldoze them into realising my
| ideas/fixes/etc are the better option (when they are, of
| course!). I've noticed people are no longer starting off
| on the defensive with their shields up to full whenever I
| pipe up now.
|
| Just throwing a thought into the ether. I do acknowledge
| there's probably a lot of wise old timers retiring out of
| the system causing the decrease, as well as the points
| you made, but you'd think there'd be a few more new and
| upcoming greybeards taking their place.
|
| I'm not saying it is for sure related, just wondering if
| anyone else can see a similar connection in their
| experiences?
|
| Not trying to diagnose every bitter genius in a one-shot
| or anything either, just thinking if there is a
| correlation to former bitters becoming easier to work
| with after mental health treatments it feels like it
| should definitely be explored further. In my anecdotal
| experience the difference has been absolute night and
| day, work life is so much easier now.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I'm not sure about that. It can at least be slow.
|
| I was... maybe not brilliant, but pretty good. I also was at
| least a borderline jerk - arrogant and not very nice. It took
| me at least a decade out of college to get better.
|
| My wife and kids think I'm on the autism spectrum, though I
| have never been diagnosed. Whether or not it's true, "people"
| is a language that it took me a long time to learn.
| ebiester wrote:
| The increased visibility about Autism has helped in the
| workplace somewhat. When someone is able to be diagnosed,
| they are given the resources to help navigate the
| neurotypical world, and managers have been expected to
| adjust their communication styles for a neuro-diverse
| workforce.
|
| Autistic people still are not given all of the
| opportunities to succeed, and training is uneven at best,
| but it's certainly on the right trajectory.
|
| That said, please consider looking at confirming a
| diagnosis. If you are indeed on the spectrum, you may
| benefit from knowing and learning adaptive strategies.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| There are different kinds of intelligence, and they often
| don't correlate to each other. A brilliant coder can
| absolutely be an emotional infant. It will handicap their
| career, for sure, but doesn't entirely preclude their ability
| to solve certain kinds of problems.
| HPsquared wrote:
| And, perhaps, there is a negative correlation due to
| selection.
|
| Of the set of emotionally immature people, only those with
| excellent technical skills will remain in employment.
| NegativeK wrote:
| I don't think I've seen this be the case -- since there
| are quite a few crappy and/or poorly paying jobs (in
| comparison) that become desperate for workers, there's
| plenty of room for abusive and jerky people.
|
| That's ignoring other broken parts of the system, such as
| nepotism.
| yolo3000 wrote:
| It's funny because that's how I think of most people going
| into management and above. They are smart, yet they will walk
| over you if you get in their way.
| tyingq wrote:
| >If someone is highly intelligent, they will realize acting
| like a jerk is not helpful and causes them problems
|
| That doesn't appear to happen for other unhelpful behavior.
| Plenty of brilliant people with severe issues with all sorts
| of other criminal or self-destructive habits.
| conjecTech wrote:
| Unfortunately not everyone we dislike is bad. I think this is
| a case of the fundamental attribution error: Most mean people
| aren't inherently mean, but are in circumstances that have
| made them so.
|
| Yes, there are newgrad "rockstars" that can't play nice, and
| end up not being very productive. But there are also veteran
| engineers who have stayed at companies through 3 years of
| 100% attrition and are not super interested in listening to
| the opinion of the 4th junior backfill on some minor
| improvement to a system they architected and have been given
| 0 time to pay down technical debt on. Or maybe they are going
| through a messy divorce and the stress of it bleeds into
| their professional life.
|
| I've gotten a lot of good out of finding such individuals,
| assuming they're reasonable people, and doing what I can to
| make their lives a little better.
| JohnFen wrote:
| This is so important!
|
| Most people are not bad, and most of the time when two
| people don't get along, it's not because either of them are
| bad people. It's usually just a chemistry thing.
| greenthrow wrote:
| I'm not talking about people you just dislike, I'm talking
| about jerks. People who are rude and insulting. You
| completely mischaracterized my comment.
| roland35 wrote:
| Many times it's not like they are a complete jerk - I
| sometimes they are just not really caring how they come
| across. The thing is - if no one is ever disagreeing with
| them they can be quite pleasant to work with!
| charlie0 wrote:
| The one brilliant "jerk" I work with works mainly by himself.
| He's been isolated from everyone else. I say "jerk" because
| he doesn't seem like one to me, he's just disagreeble. I've
| noted in most working environments, especially remote ones,
| being tactful is of the upmost importance, which is odd in an
| engineering environment where having correct and efficient
| solutions would be the most important. Me being somewhat
| disagreeable, I actually like the guy because he doesn't beat
| around the bush. But alas, one person's honesty is another
| person's "rude" behavior.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > which is odd in an engineering environment where having
| correct and efficient solutions would be the most
| important.
|
| Whenever people have to work together as a team, social
| skills become at least as important as technical ones.
|
| That's why whenever I've interviewed job applicants, my
| main concern is "how well will they function on the team",
| not "do they have all the necessary skills". Assuming that
| someone is smart and likes to learn, skills can be taught.
| Fitting in on a team, though, cannot.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >Assuming that someone is smart and likes to learn,
| skills can be taught.
|
| wish you can tell that to the current job market. Tons of
| jobs I wasn't even given time to talk to a technical
| reviewer for because it seems people right now just want
| the perfect candidate who will be productive from day
| zero.
| HPsquared wrote:
| I guess a person with low agreeableness will be more likely
| to "point out errors in the socially agreed convention".
| And therefore be seen as both brilliant, and as jerks.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > If someone is highly intelligent, they will realize acting
| like a jerk is not helpful and causes them problems
|
| Being intelligent does not mean someone is good at self-
| awareness.
| otteromkram wrote:
| Or, just doesn't care.
| tob_scott_a wrote:
| Yeah, it's also deeper than that.
|
| Aptitude with a technology certainly correlates with
| intelligence, but it doesn't necessarily imply above-
| average intelligence.
|
| Some people attain their skills through Herculean levels of
| hard work, rather than reading about it once and the
| information just _clicking_ because of their excellent
| brains. (Though, in my experience, they tend to also be
| less arrogant than techno-prodigies, but YMMV.)
|
| Self-awareness is, similarly, orthogonal to intelligence
| (as you correctly state).
|
| I find it interesting that an assumption of equivalence
| (or, at least, strong correlation) is so prevalent among
| tech workers and their friends.
| leetcrew wrote:
| sometimes you just don't have the full context on the
| situation. I used to work with a systems dev manager who was
| notorious for getting mad, yelling, and questioning every
| little detail whenever an external team went to him for
| launch signoff. at first, I thought the guy was just an
| asshole. what I gradually figured out was that the
| application teams had been outright lying about designs,
| fabricating test results, and only involving him at the last
| second to launch a pile of trash on the critical
| infrastructure he was responsible for. this had been going on
| for years and resulted in several major outages.
|
| sure, he could probably have been a bit more diplomatic
| instead of blowing his stack every time, but there's only so
| much a person can take.
| OfSanguineFire wrote:
| In my experience in academia, it isn't a myth at all. So much
| brilliant scholarship in my own field has been produced by
| people who are infamously ornery and prickly, and who don't
| fit in with the departments they are at purely due to social
| reasons, not scholarly ones. It's actually a problem that the
| modern tenure and grant system requires people to be very
| socially functioning and schmoozing.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| oh yeah, it happens so much in college because college
| students aren't and usually can't be "interviewed" face to
| face. your submission is a combination of GPA, national
| test score, a very short essay (that may or may not be
| written by you), and whatever other clubs/accomplishments
| on the side you can convince the admissions office is
| noteworthy. Perfect environment for the brilliant jerk.
|
| I'd say half get filtered out somehow from the work force
| (be it in interviews or because they choose to focus on
| Acedemia) but a lot will still get through given the bar of
| a graduate junior.
| joshjje wrote:
| You can be highly intelligent but also lack the social
| awareness / emotional intelligence, take Aspergers Syndrome
| for example.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| You discount the idea that
|
| 1) there are Savant syndrome people out there who cannot
| catch and correct their problems
|
| 2) they seem disproportionately attracted to tech
|
| So you're right that it's rare, but Tech does tend to be a
| very odd outlier for that kind of person.
| EspressoGPT wrote:
| > I worked with a DBA
|
| How is it always the DBAs.
| zabzonk wrote:
| their worries about not being much good at their job? the one
| time i tried to get one to look at our database design, the
| response was "it looks complicated". when compared with the
| back end for the trading system they were supposed to be
| supporting (but didn't), it was really simple.
| mathattack wrote:
| They're the ones who have to catch all the nonsense dropped
| from above. They're like offensive lineman - never get credit
| for success, only blame when something goes wrong.
| JohnFen wrote:
| At a previous job, I worked with such a person as well (not a
| DBA, though). Everyone tried to avoid working with him to the
| greatest degree possible -- except me.
|
| His emotions didn't bother me at all, and pretty quickly he
| came to like me exactly because I wasn't afraid of him and was
| always honest with him about my professional opinions.
|
| Eventually, though, I became his de facto "contact point", and
| everyone else who needed to interact with him would come to me
| and have me do it instead. That ended up being a huge downside.
| mdgrech23 wrote:
| sounds like you're also hard to work with.
| donatj wrote:
| I don't feel like I am. That said, I'm sure that's what a lot
| of people who are hard to work with would say.
|
| I'm opinionated and willing to stand up for what I believe is
| correct, but I'm soft spoken. I think the difference between
| the DBA and myself is that I am very open to other people's
| opinions and ideas. A fair number of my coworkers followed me
| here from a previous job.
|
| For a while, I was being a little harsh and short with people
| on code reviews. I could sense how people were reacting
| though and actively sought to be better. I worked with a
| friend who is a software mentorship advocate on how to better
| communicate effectively.
|
| As much as I hate the term, I think a little emotional
| intelligence and self reflection goes a long way.
| wccrawford wrote:
| That reminds me of a client we had at a previous job. He would
| constantly stress out the system _far_ beyond what others did.
| At one point I heard "100x" thrown around.
|
| It let me fix major bottlenecks in our system long before it
| affected other customers, and we could just shut him off for a
| while (it was in his contract after a while) until I fixed the
| problem.
|
| I was a little sad when they finally banned him for good, but
| the rest of the company was rather relieved.
| will5421 wrote:
| Too smart for the job?
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| If I were a DBA, I'd yell a lot too. When the straw breaks the
| camel's back, the camel lands on the DBA.
| bob1029 wrote:
| The combination of difficult + genius is a pretty standard
| deal. At a certain level of brilliance, it becomes challenging
| to communicate ideas, or more importantly, their implied value
| proposition to the business. Much of the time there is also
| some ego conflict on the team that evolves into a vicious cycle
| that requires superhuman reflection to unwind.
|
| For me, the best hackaround for friction is a demo. If I want
| to prove a controversial idea to the team, I build it first in
| my own time and then show it. _Talking about_ and _planning to
| do_ big scary things is 99% of the drama source in my life.
| Sometimes the demo goes off rails too, but it has a much better
| chance.
|
| After doing this for a while, I still believe the most potent
| off-hand mastery that a genius technologist could obtain is the
| sales pitch. Treating your team members just like your
| customers and hacking their brains into _wanting_ what you
| propose is the ultimate skill - if you can pull it off. If you
| can 't convince your team regarding your idea, it may not
| matter how brilliant it is. Dragging 10-20 horses to water is
| mostly infeasible for one person to accomplish without reaching
| for cartoon villain tactics (which would ultimately kill the
| whole business).
|
| I've done the sales pitch a few times. My go-to trick is to
| present 3-4 options, one of which is the option I want the team
| to really go with. The other options are framed in such a way
| that everyone feels super smart picking the one I wanted all
| along. Carefully-crafted options can move mountains.
| hnrodey wrote:
| someone with experience right here
| Exoristos wrote:
| I thought I was the only one that built demos on my own time
| from sheer desperation.
| throwitaway222 wrote:
| Sounds like a spectrum person.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| I've had a DBA refuse to do something for me, with me being a
| contractor and he being full timer. I remember I basically said
| "I've a dev, you're an admin your purpose in life is to
| implement what I build, given I have no access, so just fucking
| do it".
|
| I'd previously had someone talk smack to me on the phone when I
| needed something, so I hung up and went over to their desk and
| chewed them out loudly.
|
| This was the same place where one day after work I was at the
| pub with my workmates and I was profanely bad mouthing the head
| of IT as an incompetent boob (with just cause) and everyone was
| kicking me under the table trying to get me to shut up because
| his offsider was at the table listening. Two days later I look
| up to see him being marched past my desk and off the premises
| by security. He'd been fired.
|
| So maybe I was the bad person in that office, but these people
| just refused to do their job for no explicable reason. I
| remember everyone told me they've never heard anyone swear at
| work as much as I did, but they named a server after me after I
| left so they seemed to appreciate me.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Hope you took some personal reflection out of that instead of
| just concluding with "well I got my namesake at the job so
| that's nice". I don't got time to yell at people, I took an
| IC track for a reason.
|
| If I'm blocked, that's a lead's or manager's problem to solve
| or escalate. As a bonus, it leaves a paper trail that I don't
| need to lay out most of to begin with (just get it rolling).
| andy99 wrote:
| There's a framework of skill vs agreeableness, where you get
| {brilliant,incompetent}{nice,jerk}. If someone is objectively an
| incompetent jerk, there's not much to work with, otherwise
| there's usually a way. You don't have to like colleagues, just
| work professionally with them.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Nice and incompetent is often harder to deal with though. If
| someone is a jerk and incompetent, the solution is easy. You
| just fire that person, documenting the reasons is usually
| pretty easy, and nobody remaining feels bad about it.
|
| Nice and incompetent (assuming the person really is
| incompetent) is usually a lot harder. The business decision
| should be the same: fire them. But for most non-sociopaths,
| nobody wants to fire nice people, and their incompetence
| usually lingers much longer.
|
| On the flip side you see much of the same dynamic. Everyone
| loves brilliant nice people, so you keep them around. When it
| comes to brilliant jerks, I've found that _most of the time_ ,
| if they really are brilliant, they can be coached to understand
| their jerkiness is an impediment to their business /career
| goals, and will at least acknowledge it and try to keep it
| under wraps. But if they don't, at this stage of my life I just
| don't think it's worth it. They can go be super successful
| somewhere else, but my life is too short to be around someone a
| considerable portion of the day who is just toxic.
|
| I also think it's important to clarify what being "a jerk"
| means - there's a difference between being brash and short and
| being a toxic jerk. I mean, I think most people would classify
| Steve Jobs as a jerk by the dictionary definition, but he
| obviously wasn't a jerk that was toxic to the organization. On
| the contrary, he was a giant motivating force, and many people
| have said they did the best work of their lives working for him
| and are grateful for the opportunity.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > I also think it's important to clarify what being "a jerk"
| means - there's a difference between being brash and short
| and being a toxic jerk. I mean, I think most people would
| classify Steve Jobs as a jerk by the dictionary definition,
| but he obviously wasn't a jerk that was toxic to the
| organization.
|
| The problem with "kind of jerks" at the helm is that people
| further down the totem pole look up to their leaders as
| examples of how to behave, and it is a lot easier to adopt
| "jerkness" into your behavior than it is to adopt the more
| subtle, effective parts of Jobs's personality and behavior
| that enabled Apple to succeed. So as they say, the fish rots
| from the head. The leader's SVPs take on a mildly "jerk"
| persona because that's the example set, their VPs look at
| their SVPs and become mostly jerks, their Directors become
| raging assholes, and before you know it, the whole management
| chain is toxic.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >Nice and incompetent (assuming the person really is
| incompetent)
|
| YMMV and it can really depend on the pedigree of work. But
| personally I've never ran into a truly incompetent nice
| person. Very few incompotent jerks who were fortunately let
| go quickly, but the closest I can recall is a really nice
| lead who clearly wasn't lead material. But they were an
| absolutely brilliant IC and clearly had knowledge to spread
| to others. You can tell why they made him a lead; he was more
| or less a "guru" of sorts who constantly got people unstuck
| from some sticky situations. Being a helpful IC isn't the
| same as being a lead, though.
|
| But otherwise, I don't know. At least, I've never run into
| those "can't do fizzbuzz" levels of programmers who somehow
| got hired.
| watwut wrote:
| Incompetent jerks do very well in corporate. They usually
| have very clear idea about who the boss is - boss gets to be
| treated very nicely. Peers are subtly badmouted and
| criticized when they can't defend themselves. And the most
| jerkness goes to peers they don't need and such.
|
| Toxic jerks are not just autistic-like unaware of social
| situations. They are fully aware when they can and can not
| afford it.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| I just move on and work with someone else. Not worth the stress.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| This is better advice. If you can move on then do that.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| "Run away from your problems, avoid dealing with them or
| learning better interpersonal skills" is better advice?
| gardenhedge wrote:
| Not the phrasing I used or would use but, of course.
|
| If your goal is specifically to learn how to work with
| people you don't like then it makes sense to try work with
| them. If your goal is anything but that then you're better
| off avoiding that situation.
| underseacables wrote:
| This is good advice but when given I often hear pushback; there
| are no other jobs, why should I leave, or we need a union etc.
| If a job is making you feel bad, you should leave, because no
| matter what you're not likely to change that job. People
| bristle at this notion..
| sokoloff wrote:
| Changing your company is usually easier than changing your
| company. ;)
| xenadu02 wrote:
| I pitch that advice as follows:
|
| You have two choices here.
|
| You can be fight for what you think is right but go into that
| battle understanding you have a high chance of losing. It is
| a noble endeavor and society needs people willing to pay the
| personal price to make forward progress. Only you can decide
| if this is the hill you want to die on.
|
| The second choice is to put yourself and/or your family first
| and move on. It's just a job. This second choice will almost
| always result in more happiness and possibly even wealth for
| you.
|
| Which is more important to you? Fighting for some form of
| "justice" here or being happy?
| poszlem wrote:
| My first boss told me once: "You can either change your job
| or change your job" and that's how I always looked at it. Try
| to effect change, but don't force it.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| To be fair, it isn't a drop of a hat to switch jobs. Just
| look at the current tech market. It ain't always an option
| even here.
|
| And while I get job hopping because of money (bigger pay
| bumps, company loyalty is dead), I still wouldn't want to hop
| Too often. That will also make it harder to jump later on
| when a really good opportunity comes up.
|
| It also brings up an old adage: "when everything around you
| smells, look under your shoe". Of every job has "someone"
| that annoys you in different ways, you may need more than a
| change of environment to address that.
| alphanumeric0 wrote:
| This enables unscrupulous companies to force people to quit by
| consistently being assholes to them.
| bityard wrote:
| So, win/win, then? /s
| mnw21cam wrote:
| Document the abuse, collect enough evidence, quit, then sue
| them for constructive dismissal.
| Simon_ORourke wrote:
| Constructive dismissal is typically a couple of years
| salary at best. If the company doesn't care about the bad
| PR from the legal proceedings then it's just a hard graft
| for little benefit and lots of potential downside.
| kaon123 wrote:
| Nothing works if that person is your superior and holds absolute
| power over you.
|
| Examples situations close friends of mine have experienced:
|
| 1. You are a PhD student and he (and it usually is a he) is your
| professor.
|
| 2. You are in a profession with limited opportunity (say, HR) and
| he is your boss.
|
| 3. You are an immigrant, and losing your job means leaving the
| country.
|
| 4. All of the above.
|
| I feel articles like these are written by people that have never
| been in above situations. If you are in a dependency situation,
| you are fucked. Pro lifetip: Avoid dependency situations whenever
| you can. And sometimes you can't and just have to hope for the
| best.
|
| (edit: add styling)
| vannucci wrote:
| Your 3rd bullet really hits hard, I had many colleagues at an
| old job who would do insane things for our company because they
| were on a visa and had purchased a home and they explained to
| me that they can't afford to not do every single thing asked.
| It was so heartbreaking.
| charlie0 wrote:
| I've worked at a place with mostly HB1 engineers and I've
| seen this lead to bad software because almost no one can say
| no to dumb requests. In these environments, no one challenges
| the higher ups and just do what they are told, no questions
| asked.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| 4 sounds particularly bad. A male PhD professor who's also your
| (usually?) male HR boss and you're in on H1B.
| ebiester wrote:
| You can just as well be on an F1 and all the professor has to
| do is deny funding for a semester, and you've wasted years of
| effort.
| raincole wrote:
| I'm not entirely sure when the gender entered the equation.
| underseacables wrote:
| There are bad female PhD professors, it's not just men. I
| think OP may be female or chose it for convenience example.
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| There really should be no excuse for sexism.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| It's a result of sexism, though. That's the average age
| of a tenured professor these days, 60? We are just now
| starting to see the effects of women enterting the top of
| the workforce chains.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| In the parent comment.
| throwaway167 wrote:
| Laugh not. I've been there. Not a H1B but a work visa in
| another country. PhD yes, worse, lapsed but threw it around,
| better, business setting.
|
| My 'way out' was to stay on and keep building good terms with
| his boss's equivalent in another part of the company, one of
| the owners. Worked out ok. Had she not been there, I'd have
| left.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I also worked overseas on a visa tied to my employer. I
| managed to move job to stay in the country; otherwise I'd
| have had issues too. But I didn't think it was an awful
| situation exactly - it was the exact one I'd chosen.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| People holding power over others should always consider that
| hammers are easy to get
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Streleski
| ycombobreaker wrote:
| People in general should not be seriously forced to consider
| that a coworker will murder them, regardless of the power
| imbalance in the workplace. This is totally out of line.
| daoboy wrote:
| Absolutely all of that.
|
| About a year of my enlistment in the Marine Corps was under a
| platoon sergeant who was one of the worst people I have ever
| met. Petty, cruel, and genuinely sadistic. He had authority
| over virtually every aspect of our lives, to include things
| like random barracks inspections in the middle of the night
| (that was definitely not the worst of it). It was a nightmare.
|
| It was a defining period and I got out vowing to never put
| myself in a position where someone had that much control over
| my life again.
| malnourish wrote:
| Did you decline to re-enlist?
| daoboy wrote:
| I did, but it was a surprisingly close thing!
|
| My friend and I were recruited for a counterintelligence
| spot that paid a $35,000 re-enlistment bonus at the time. I
| just couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger and stay in.
|
| My friend stayed for another two enlistments before getting
| out. His stories convinced me I made the right decision. He
| now has a very lucrative related job in the private sector
| while I shifted gears entirely.
| thendrill wrote:
| Absolutely agree.
|
| Especially with supervising professors.... The dumbest
| people... And Hr... Shit people..
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I agree with the GP comment that if someone is in a
| supervisory role to you and you don't like them, do
| everything you can to find a way out.
|
| The thing I find so amusing about _your_ comment is that, in
| a thread about dealing with toxic people, you have written
| off "supervising professors" as "the dumbest people", and
| all of HR as "Shit people", and you fail to see the irony.
| jSully24 wrote:
| 5. Your superior has deep previous relationships with other
| higher level people in your company.
| tivert wrote:
| > 2. You are in a profession with limited opportunity (say, HR)
| and he is your boss.
|
| Why is your example HR? Literally every company has an HR
| function and they're often quite large organizations. There's
| tons of opportunity to move away from a bad boss in HR.
|
| A better example would be some company-specific niche role [1],
| where the only similar roles would be at a competitor located
| on the other side of the country.
|
| [1] I could give examples, except those would give away more
| personal info that I want to
| kgwxd wrote:
| > Avoid dependency situations whenever you can.
|
| The most important lesson programming has ever taught me.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Especially not if they're a narcissist or some other label on
| the Cluster B spectrum.
|
| Some people are inherently toxic. You should _not_ assume good
| will, because they 're motivated by antagonism and hierarchy,
| not a genuine need to solve problems together.
|
| Worse, they're incapable of empathy. And they gravitate to
| positions of power. So the higher you go, the more likely you
| are to meet them.
|
| Obviously it's wildly and unhelpfully wrong to suggest everyone
| you have friction with is like this.
|
| But it's also unrealistic to ignore the existence of a
| personality type that can be incredibly destructive,
| professionally and personally.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| You are fucked if _they_ don't like you. If it's just you not
| liking them without it being fiercely mutual, the article may
| still apply.
|
| I've been in the situation #3. The rule is that you put your
| best game face on and try to either fly under the radar or not
| give them reasons to dislike you. Create a network of
| acquaintances on your own level and get as much intelligence as
| you can.
|
| _Brave Soldier Svejk_ is practically required reading for
| getting the right kind of attitude.
| underseacables wrote:
| I would add bad colleagues. I worked with two people who were
| very toxic, but loved by the Queen Cersi-like manager. Those
| two hated me and took great joy undermining my work. The evil
| manager enabled the atrocious colleague behavior.
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| > Nothing works if that person is your superior and holds
| absolute power over you.
|
| The only reason they become issues is if they don't like you.
| Otherwise, these are still valid. The post isn't about working
| with someone who dislikes you. It's about working with someone
| you dislike.
| dandare wrote:
| >and it usually is a he
|
| My toxic boss (she) was a diversity hire (women in tech) with
| limited experience (fast tracked for management) but unlimited
| support from the top (diversity quotas). I ended up bullied out
| of the company with damaged mental health (anxiety attacks).
| svnt wrote:
| > he (and it usually is a he) is your professor
|
| This has not been true for some years now:
| https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61
| selimthegrim wrote:
| 1. Can be managed if you have direct contacts with the deans. I
| really don't recommend this unless you know exactly what to do.
| You can't teach academic managing up. Also if you're on an H1-B
| or F1 (not domestic) I agree you're cooked.
| elzbardico wrote:
| This is easy. The other way around, even more when you're new in
| the team and the person that doesn't like you is well established
| is the biggest challenge.
| braindead_in wrote:
| Interestingly, all these things are required for loving kindness
| meditation practice as well.
| lijok wrote:
| As far as I understand, the fastest way to correct a work
| relationship going sour, without having to go through an
| emotional rollercoaster, is to find a connection, no matter how
| small. Maybe you both enjoy/dislike something, maybe you're both
| experts at a particular thing, etc.
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| I've never found the connection angle useful, as the recipient
| of the attempt. It feels... if not patronizing, then at least
| irrelevant.
|
| Oh Star Trek played a vital role in both our formative years?
| That's nice, but let's get back to solving the matter at hand.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Even a shared love of Star Trek can result in irreconcilable
| differences and huge battles. I'd never want to work with
| somebody who likes Holodeck episodes or doesn't love Gowron.
|
| That said, there are some times that even Star Trek fans and
| Star Wars fans can actually get along.
|
| I'm bistellar: I love both Star Trek AND Star Wars!
| naasking wrote:
| > I'd never want to work with somebody who likes Holodeck
| episodes or doesn't love Gowron.
|
| I like holodeck episodes, as long as they're not overdone.
| I have no strong feelings about Gowron, seems like a
| canonical distillation of a Klingon. Maybe we won't get
| along.
|
| > I'm bistellar: I love both Star Trek AND Star Wars!
|
| Me too! Can we get along now?
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Of course, as long as I can shower you with all my
| favorite Gowron themed Star Trek Shitposting memes! Look
| into his eyes. You'll grow to love him the way I do, and
| thank me later, I promise.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| One of the best ds9 episodes (and thus best Star Trek
| episodes) is the holodeck episode where the crew are James
| Bond villains. Bashir and Garek are the ones who have to
| escape.
|
| If you disagree with this I hope you get pipd /s
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| I found that DS9 ep pretty boring. Whenever Avery Brooks
| is given an opportunity to chew the scenery it breaks the
| 4th wall for me. The main value of the episode is Andrew
| Robinson as Garak (as it always is), commenting on the
| absurdity of the fictional spy stuff.
|
| _In The Pale Moonlight_ is the maximum scenery-chewing
| by Avery Brooks I can take.
| Arrath wrote:
| I'm partial to "Chief O'Brien Suffers: Vol XXXVII: This
| time He's in Mind Prison", pretty twisted episode.
|
| (AKA "Hard Time", S4E19)
| outworlder wrote:
| Panstellar here: Stargate
| jon-wood wrote:
| This has just brought back vivid memories of the person I
| used to work with where the one thing we had in common was
| actually a love of Star Trek. I still have no idea how he
| loves it so much given he apparently learned absolutely
| nothing from it, seemingly every belief and behaviour he held
| was something that would have Picard facepalming.
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| Yeah it's weird- so many commenters in /r/StarTrekMemes
| also seem to have taken no lessons (or the wrong lessons)
| from TNG, and at the same time accuse me of having done the
| same.
|
| People and worldviews are totally inconsistent, even when
| two people watched the exact same thing religiously and can
| quote it back to you in context.
| op00to wrote:
| I took all my lessons from DS9. Specifically Ferenghi
| rules of acquisition.
| stcroixx wrote:
| The entertainment industry is famous for it's lack of
| morals - why even consider taking any lesson from
| something they've produced? Role models, if needed, can
| be found somewhere else. I love star trek, have seen it
| all, etc. but it's purely entertainment for me.
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| Star Trek TNG is one morality play after another. It's
| pretty useful morality, too.
|
| That it was made by immoral or amoral people is secondary
| to that usefulness.
| jddj wrote:
| I agree that it feels trite and fake.
|
| The way to get things done with difficult people is:
|
| 1. Work out (for yourself) what you really want*
|
| 2. Work out (for yourself) what they really want*
|
| 3. Accept that they want that
|
| 4. Work maturely and fairly within that context.
|
| No cookie cutter management fluff is going to get you
| anywhere useful with intelligent people.
|
| * Usually people want their situation to either be more
| rewarding (read: recognition or control) or less taxing.
|
| Edit: Acknowledging this here, because it does apply to this
| comment:
|
| 5. Draw the rest of the owl
| saghm wrote:
| At least personally, the people I've found difficult to
| work with aren't ones who I don't know what they want; it's
| that what they want conflicts with what I want. Usually,
| this boils down to "they want to decide how everything is
| done and not have to justify it to me, and I want to not
| just blindly follow what they tell me to do". Trying to
| "work maturely and fairly within that context" is directly
| at odds with what they want in those cases.
| jddj wrote:
| There is a lot of that. I have one who in no exaggerated
| terms needs every good thing to have been their idea and
| will reframe what their role was in anything that turns
| out to have been a waste of time/money.
|
| They want, more than anything, approval and recognition -
| to an embarrassing extent.
|
| It's not fun and I'd have it almost any other way given
| the choice, but we've achieved a lot despite that and
| observers so far have been astute enough to see things
| for what they are.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| > No cookie cutter management fluff is going to get you
| anywhere useful with intelligent people.
|
| bollocks. intelligent people are just as susceptible to
| advertising, charisma, good looks, "presence", flattery,
| threats, and other manipulation as anyone. The bar may be a
| little higher, but everyone has intrinsic biases regardless
| of IQ, and it's not hard to flesh those out through
| interactions, then pander to them.
|
| These are all part and parcel of the management toolkit and
| if you don't think they are then chances are they're
| working on you right now. "Advertising works, even when you
| know how advertising works".
| jddj wrote:
| I don't disagree with much of that at all.
|
| Intelligent wasn't some nod to the learned class or a
| differentiator, I meant it in a very general and generous
| way.
|
| People quickly see through things like, " _I understand
| that you feel that way, and I 'll definitely take your
| comments on board.
|
| Moving forward let's see how we can collaborate in a
| manner in which we can all feel heard and empowered._"
|
| Or rote-learned manufactured smalltalk.
|
| It's not an argument against generally finding things in
| common with people either, of course, just a
| recommendation to avoid the scripted stuff and get to the
| meat of it sooner.
|
| I do think that a lot of management advice would suffer
| from a replication crisis if it had a strong enough base
| for that to be coherent.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Also have to keep in mind that just because your peers
| are intelligent, doesn't mean the management above is.
| They will probably reach out to the flatterer as a point
| of contact even if they aren't the best one at that
| specific task to be done.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Sounds like a lot of HN people just don't like desire friends
| period. Like work is just a begrudging duty to attend to for
| half their waking lives but do it in tech because it pays
| extremely well for less investment (compared to other
| professions like doctors and Lawyers).
|
| Again, It's half your life in your most active years so Idk
| how I'd tolerate a lonely workplace in top of an increasingly
| lonely world. Does everyone just suffice using online dating
| and posting here for other socialization?
| PakG1 wrote:
| Friendships develop naturally, you can't force them. You
| are forced to have relationships with co-workers though.
| Just because you're forced to have co-workers, this doesn't
| mean you should be forced to be friends with them. In the
| end, if friendships naturally develop, that's great. If
| friendships don't develop, there's nothing wrong with
| having a purely professional relationship with co-workers,
| especially if they are productive, energizing, kind, etc.
| There's no reason to feel like this is a negative thing. I
| can certainly get all my friendship needs met outside of
| work and love from my family at home. The only time I'd be
| desperate to make friends at work is if I'm single in a new
| city with no attachments to anyone around me. Even then, I
| can't force friendships to develop at work. The nature of
| friendship is different from work relationships.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Sure. But friendships also take effort and finding the
| idea of casually conversing on the clock "patronizing"
| sounds like effort to actively prevent any friendships.
| You don't have to force yourself, but being close minded
| to the idea outright
|
| > There's no reason to feel like this is a negative
| thing.
|
| disagree or not, I already gave my POV. you spend half
| your waking hours of the best years of your life there, I
| want to try and at least be open to the idea of people
| who hopefully are passionate in the same kind of work as
| me would have something to connect over.
|
| But hey, if you have friends in town or are fine focusing
| on family, that's fine.
|
| >I can certainly get all my friendship needs met outside
| of work and love from my family at home. The only time
| I'd be desperate to make friends at work is if I'm single
| in a new city with no attachments to anyone around me.
|
| welcome to most college grads that don't all go work at a
| FAANG together after college. First job sucked but met
| some great friends, still talk to this day. Didn't force
| myself at all; some people asked to go out to lunch and I
| was simply willing enough to go out instead of keep my
| head at my desk. Some meshed well, some not so much.
|
| 2nd job was amazing from a career perspective, but I
| clearly wasn't going to closely bond with everyone else
| being 15+ years older than me with kids/family as a
| single 26YO dude (at the time). Wouldn't change it for
| the world, but it was always a lingering feeling there
| where I felt I had to try and act 10 years older in
| career and maturity compared to just being myself in the
| first role.
| outworlder wrote:
| > Sounds like a lot of HN people just don't like desire
| friends period.
|
| At work? They are not my friends. Over almost a decade
| working for the same company there's one person I can
| consider a friend and I'm pretty sure I'll continue to talk
| once we are working at other places. Everyone else? Not
| friends. Friendly, sure.
|
| Work is really the wrong place to be looking for friends.
| Hopefully one has a life outside of work.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >Over almost a decade working for the same company
| there's one person I can consider a friend and I'm pretty
| sure I'll continue to talk once we are working at other
| places.
|
| I've had to jump jobs every 3 years (not because I wanted
| to. just laid off) and I try to make at least 2-3 people
| I keep in contact with at every place. Made a few close
| friends but not at every job.
|
| >Work is really the wrong place to be looking for
| friends.
|
| Third place is dying, so it's becoming more and more of
| the only place to meet friends. It's not uncommon advice
| to try and find friends at the place you work. But like
| people anything, YMMV.
|
| >Hopefully one has a life outside of work.
|
| 3 years of pandemic and looming recession don't help much
| with that, unfortunately. feel so bad for those that
| graduate in 2019, or worse, in college as the pandemic
| hit.
| chownie wrote:
| I can't understand how to make friends with people at work
| when it seems my colleagues and I are all putting on
| invented professional personalities.
|
| How do you make friends with the equivalent of someone's
| customer service voice?
| voiceblue wrote:
| > I can't understand how to make friends with people at
| work when it seems my colleagues and I are all putting on
| invented professional personalities.
|
| Not everyone is or even wants to. You just have to earn
| enough trust for them to drop the mask, and sometimes
| that involves not wearing one yourself.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Sure, I get that. The key from my limited experience is
| to be open to work-adjacent outings. Going out to lunch,
| participating in some company event, or simply making the
| occasional comment in some casual chat channel. The
| "voice" won't be completely unmasked, but you start to
| see more points to jump into other than what deadlines
| are coming or ideas for the next feature.
|
| I'll admit it's usually easier (or harder) for my
| industry to do this. I work in games, many people like
| and play games Obvious icebreaker: what kind of games do
| you play? Granted, games are super varied and it can lead
| nowhere if you play MMOs and the recipient plays FPSs,
| but it's more than what most can try to start out with.
| It also means there's a lot more non-devs on the floor to
| talk with too if you don't care to breath tech in and out
| of work.
|
| ---
|
| I do also need to echo the other reply that there are
| also, simply more and more people who aren't willing to
| try to socialize at work. You can't do much about that so
| don't spend your time talking to a wall if you can
| identify one.
| nitwit005 wrote:
| The premise here is you don't like someone. Why are you
| trying to become friends with someone you don't like?
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| the main premise sure. the comment I'm responding to is
| "I don't like talking about non-work stuff at work
| period. The person was annoying because of that". And
| that just feels like a lonely way to treat work, in my
| eyes.
| ahoka wrote:
| Resort to stockholm syndrome? No, abuse is never OK.
| lijok wrote:
| There's a big difference between abuse and not being liked by
| someone
| sevagh wrote:
| If they bring the heat, you bring it right back. If you let
| people bully you once it won't ever stop.
| brnt wrote:
| A bully needs standing up against, full stop, but was OP
| arguing any bullying was involved? I indeed share the
| experience that it helps to find commonality if you have to
| work with someone you don't jibe with. The not jibing doesn't
| have to be nasty.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| You don't need to match a heated affect to stand up to
| bullying. You just need to know where your lines are, and
| stand your ground. It can be done calmly, and might even be
| more effective that way.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| And then the bully gets you fired by undermining you and
| engaging in sycophantic behavior with senior management.
| sevagh wrote:
| Yeah, agreed. I guess "bring the heat" implies combat but
| standing one's ground calmly (or, refusing to accept the
| person's heat) is better.
| bityard wrote:
| Well, the thing is, if you try to fight a jerk with their own
| weapons, others around you will see you behaving as a jerk as
| well. And then you've lost more than just another argument.
|
| I prefer the Columbo method. No matter emotional the other
| person gets, remain calm, polite, and respectful in ALL of
| your responses. Remember that an angry person's only goal is
| to get you angry as well in an effort to blind you to the
| facts. Then when you trip up, they point at you and say, "Ha!
| See? You were wrong!" A professional manipulator can be very,
| VERY good at this. The most important thing to remember is:
| just don't get angry no matter what. You can't control THEM,
| but you CAN control YOU.
|
| If they are the type who can _eventually_ be reasoned with,
| then relentlessly question their facts, poke holes in their
| logic, and eventually they will likely shut up or go away.
| Or, possibly, you might learn something you didn't know and
| they weren't good at articulating it well, and you can both
| move forward with a better understanding. It sucks that some
| people can't put forth a rational argument without making it
| a flame war first, but that is sometimes the way it goes.
|
| But if they just want to argue, then a simple, "sorry, but I
| really have to focus on X right now," followed by the silent
| treatment always works as a last resort.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| This works if it happens naturally. If it's forced, it can come
| across as insincere or manipulative and make things worse.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| You have to force it sincerely. Dale Carnegie wrote a book on
| this.
| timeagain wrote:
| If you sincerely want to connect, then any attempt will not
| feel forced, even if it is out of your usual social
| repertoire. If they see you putting in work, it will show.
| After all the only way we can grow to accept more kinds of
| people is by "forcing" ourselves out of comfort.
| PakG1 wrote:
| I dislike that book. I'm not sure I learned a single thing
| from it.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| We had a writing exercise in one of my college creative writing
| classes. You were supposed to write down 5 things you hate
| about someone you dislike. Then you're supposed write down 5
| things you admire about them.
|
| Really taught me a lot about my perspectives and what real
| humility looks like.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I had a smart, thoughtful coworker that I just couldn't mesh
| with. Something about our personalities were oil and water. One
| day it came up that we were both fans of the same video game
| genre, and from then on we had something pleasant to chat
| about. That tiny bit of personal connection had more of a
| smoothing effect than I would have expected.
| whatyesaid wrote:
| GPT?
| greatpostman wrote:
| Even worse, what's the advice for when your cofounder is the ceo,
| has a higher stake than you, and is borderline incompetent? But
| you're funded and the idea has promise. Quite the catch 22. Do
| you stay and do all the work while this person is along for the
| ride? Assume you can't push them out
| williamcotton wrote:
| Did they do the fundraising? Do your primary investors like and
| appreciate this person? If neither are true, talk with your
| investors and perhaps they can offer advice.
| greatpostman wrote:
| They have an absolutely premium resume. Investors like it
| williamcotton wrote:
| Isn't their fundraising ability kind of valuable to your
| interests?
|
| Is there a way you can help find some work for them to do?
| Like, hitting the pavement hard to wrangle up customers?
|
| I dunno, just spitballing!
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Who would found a company together with somebody without
| knowing that person very deeply? You can't be in business if
| you're incompetent in the most basic skill for businesses:
| understanding people. How didn't you know before that he or she
| was incompetent? That makes you completely incompetent as well.
| Learn people skills before trying to start a business again, or
| you will be burnt.
| greatpostman wrote:
| Good situations come up, X millions raised. Takes a few
| months of working with someone to understand them. It's
| probably still better than working a regular job
| carlosjobim wrote:
| As long as you have bullet proof legal protection on your
| side. Imagine being stuck and responsible for the mistakes
| and faults your business partner, with no easy way out.
| This happened to me, because I was young and incompetent in
| knowing people. Luckily I learned my lesson for a fairly
| cheap price, as there were no millions of dollars involved.
| svnt wrote:
| If everything else works, or you can make it work, eventually
| as you scale their incompetence will show, and they will be
| helped into one of the roles for founders like these: CSO, CIO,
| CPO, etc.
|
| It is also possible that you just don't understand their
| competency or value. It isn't a given that high skill in
| rational discourse is necessary for everyone.
| greatpostman wrote:
| Right but it's a weird feeling, doing all this work and have
| this person own large stake in it
| esafak wrote:
| Worst case you can use the experience for a new company.
| philote wrote:
| Maybe try to remember the reasons you originally wanted to
| start a company with them? I'm curious what those reasons are
| if this person is incompetent and trying to start a company.
| Did they bring the idea AND the money?
|
| I'm in a related situation. I've been working for a company for
| years, and the owner is incompetent in most areas except sales.
| His original company is over a decade old but now almost dead.
| Somehow he's still getting investor money and for the past 5
| years has been trying to start a new business, but keeps
| pivoting before anything is actually released to the public.
| I'm the main dev and it's getting frustrating, but I know
| without me he definitely won't get anywhere. And the pay vs
| time invested is pretty good at the moment.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| Help the person grow in a way that minimizes what you perceive
| as incompetence. How is this not the obvious answer versus
| drastic action?
|
| Are they bad at contributing technically? Are they lazy? Are
| they bullish on bad decisions? Do they not listen to input? Are
| they reckless? Are they overly optimistic? Are they morally
| dubious? I've yet to meet a founder-type that didn't exhibit at
| least one (often two) of those traits.
| greatpostman wrote:
| It's more that they just don't have good business sense. They
| can't make decisions on their own, and so I'm essentially
| doing their job and mine.
| softfalcon wrote:
| You're getting caught up in the "I do everything, they do
| nothing" comparisons. Yes, it's unfair, yes, you are
| justified in being annoyed by that. It won't change your
| predicament though.
|
| You might balk at this, but since you're at the
| cofounder/lead level, you already have the power to make
| real change. Lead this other person, support them, don't do
| their job for them. You likely need to "teach them to fish"
| so to speak.
|
| There are some tough conversations and boundary setting you
| likely need to do. It's going to be hard, because the other
| party is used to the way things are. If you hang in there,
| stay patient, and focus on maintaining a positive, growing
| relationship, to have a good chance of succeeding though.
|
| This weakness you perceive in your peer is an opportunity
| for growth if you look at it the right way.
| greatpostman wrote:
| Maybe, but this isn't about growth, it's about making
| money. I'm not doing this for my health or the
| experience, but rather to succeed.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Stay but don't wipe their ass for them. Allow the natural
| consequences of failure to fall on their head, then when they
| are frustrated and scared offer to resolve the problem for
| additional equity and or a fixed fee.
|
| Basically set boundaries, those types set very clear boundaries
| around the money so that's a great place to look when
| considering what your time boundary is.
| naasking wrote:
| > Even worse, what's the advice for when your cofounder is the
| ceo, has a higher stake than you, and is borderline
| incompetent?
|
| I know someone in a similar situation. My advice at the time:
| get a big white board and a keep running score on who was right
| on any particular decision. I don't think they took me up on
| that suggestion.
| scaryclam wrote:
| From my experience, if your CEO is not competent, the business
| is doomed to fail without an immense amount of luck.
|
| I've worked in a startup that had funding, and a good idea, but
| the CEO couldn't run a business. He also wouldn't let any of
| the reigns go to people who COULD run the business, so it was
| miserable. We'd change directions at least once a week, we'd
| have him promising customers things that we obviously couldn't
| deliver, and he'd sign contracts we couldn't honour. He was
| also abusive to the staff, with the exception of one, who was
| also incompetent but brown-nosed relentlessly.
|
| If the idea has promise, leave, wait out any non-compete and
| start again without them. Heck, they may even close down and
| you'd be free to do as you wish. Or move on if there's no way
| to do that without being sued into the ground. Life is too
| short to be miserable at work.
| greatpostman wrote:
| Yeah, I really really wish I could have a run at it myself.
| It just feels like this huge amount of baggage, and all the
| value I'm creating is accruing to someone else. I'm at the
| point to where there's no real reason to communicate with him
| other than to keep up appearances, there's no decent
| information/ideas/perspectives/developments coming from that
| side of town.
|
| It still feels foolish to walk away, I could probably will
| this business into some level of revenue. Question is if it's
| worth it to me, a liquidity event would be so far away.
| EspressoGPT wrote:
| TIL: Visiting Forbes without an ad blocker will trigger
| epilepsia.
| anticensor wrote:
| Major or minor seizure?
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| My only "agreement" going into a position is:
|
| I'll do my best to make you look good, if you do the same for me
| and everyone else.[1]
|
| Sometimes it works well. Sometimes it doesn't. It's not that I
| don't like the person per se. It's that that person typically
| likes themselves too much, and the rest of stand in that shadow
| (read: blind spot).
|
| People talk about being nice and being kind, etc. at work. Sure,
| that helps. But first and foremost...Do. Your. Job. And don't
| neglect the team either.
|
| [1] This work "agreement" is a more optimistic riff on another
| heuristic I have: When you expect more of me than you do of
| yourself, we have a problem.
| froggertoaster wrote:
| https://archive.is/kbpFk
| flint wrote:
| Years ago, I had an issue with a coworker. My mentor told me to
| pray for them. I cursed him but did it anyway. About six months
| later, a different coworker came to me and asked, "How do you get
| along with X? They really seem to respect you." I told him that I
| prayed for X. He called me an axxhole.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| sounds like you found someone new to pray for
| varjag wrote:
| This has to be the most American thing I read on HN this year.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't take HN threads into nationalistic or religious
| flamewar, and certainly not both at the same time.
| varjag wrote:
| I apologize. I was honestly astonished.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Do you live in the South?
| flint wrote:
| I live in Nashville now. That job was on Wall Street. I am
| not religious.
| shipscode wrote:
| Instead of partaking in these mental gymnastics it's prudent to
| go out on your own or get a new job.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Can on;y do that so many times in quick succession before it
| becomes harder to jump the next time.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Those are good tips. I would also add "don't engage with them on
| anything that isn't work-related".
|
| I have a coworker who is difficult to work with because he
| insists on political conversations. "Don't engage" is working
| well there. Every time he tries to talk politics, I immediately
| shift the conversation to a work topic. I keep hoping that he'll
| catch the hint, but even if he never does, doing that still
| avoids unnecessary workplace strife.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Avoiding political conversations at work is probably a good
| idea even with people you do get along with.
|
| Getting along great doesn't always mean two people will agree
| on every topic. And obviously people do not need to agree on
| every topic to have a fantastic time working together.
|
| Also, depending on the context, other people might overhear
| part of the conversation and disagree, get offended, etc.
| Faark wrote:
| But do you want to work with people you cannot disagree with?
| Like, at some point we will probably disagree on work related
| topics as well, and I'd expect it to go somewhat similarly.
| savanaly wrote:
| The dose makes the poison. So it is with disagreement, why
| opt into more of it?
| betenoire wrote:
| Disagreeing on work-related stuff usually isn't about
| opinions, it is usually about ways to get things done. I
| _want_ to hear why I'm wrong about things in my job, I want
| to learn. I don't care about hearing why I'm wrong about
| life in general.
|
| There is a blurry line with things that are indirectly work
| related (ex: opinions on cloud vs self hosting, etc). Those
| are for friday afternoons :)
| DrBazza wrote:
| Sex and politics have traditionally been the two topics that
| are best avoided in social settings. It seems that tradition is
| gradually disappearing.
| muro wrote:
| And religion
| antaviana wrote:
| And football.
| reactordev wrote:
| Unless fantasy
| lesuorac wrote:
| Do you mean work settings? I think traditionally Sex has been
| a staple of social settings; it's why a non-trival amount of
| people play novice sports (to meet future spouses).
| triceratops wrote:
| What does playing novice spots mean?
| lesuorac wrote:
| Typo-o; Sports.
|
| It's like all those bar leagues where people play
| softball for 90mins and then hang out at the bar
| afterwards for the rest of the day.
| willis936 wrote:
| I was already engaged when my spouse and I played beer
| league softball. It's awesome even when not in the
| market.
| joncrocks wrote:
| Generally best to avoid talking about the specifics of the
| actual acts when in polite company.
|
| Sex, Politics, Religion were the traditional ones to avoid.
| I'd also add 'childcare/how to raise children' as another
| one that can easily escalate/some people have very strong
| opinions on.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I thought the taboo topics were religion and politics.
| Exoristos wrote:
| And personal wealth or lack thereof. That said, a lot of
| office gab back in the day amounted to sexual harassment,
| so I'd be glad to include sex in the taboos.
| DrBazza wrote:
| Actually I think you're right.
| norir wrote:
| The problem is that our culture provides us with few models of
| how to effectively agree to disagree. Indeed we often elevate
| the most stubbornly obstinate in their views with unfortunate
| trickle down effects on all of our discourse. It's a shame that
| in cases like this we can't easily say things like: I hear you
| but I have a different take and I don't think this conversation
| will be constructive so let's stay focused on X. Or even, I
| agree with you, but this isn't the time or place for this
| conversation so let's stay focused on X.
| ttymck wrote:
| The other problem is that no one seems comfortable saying "I
| don't want to discuss this with you".
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| Yeah, we have an overly polite culture, in that way
| et-al wrote:
| There's been a push where everyone is somehow _required_ to
| voice their opinion. Remember that "silence is complicity"
| catchphrase?
| 8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote:
| And let's not forget the very fashionable "bring your
| whole self to work" which works great if you already have
| the same one true opinion as everybody else, but is a
| horrible idea if you tend to hold non-majority views
| which can easily lead to ostracism.
| jstarfish wrote:
| First it was silence is violence. Now words are _also_
| violence.
|
| Best stay silent and let people assume you're a killer
| than open your mouth and prove them right.
|
| > There's been a push where everyone is somehow required
| to voice their opinion.
|
| It's a trap. McCarthy's Inquisition never ended. You
| don't need to go _find_ those pesky ___ when you can
| pressure everyone into confessing their beliefs.
|
| So where _do_ you stand on Israel?
| watwut wrote:
| The amount od situations where it applies is fairly
| limited. As in, it makes sense to apply where you "would
| be complicit in something bad", but majority of
| disagreements do not cause actual harm.
| NickC25 wrote:
| I've gotten comfortable with that, and more. All I say is
| "This isn't a public square, and we're at work. I'm not
| paid to sit around and talk politics, and neither are you.
| Let's continue on doing what we're paid to do. I don't want
| to hear your opinions or your bullshit, and you shouldn't
| want to hear mine. Both are irrelevant to the tasks we're
| paid to preform.".
|
| Seems to work well. If they insist on continuing, I like to
| go down the path of "Please stop. As stated, I'm not
| comfortable discussing personal matters when I'm on the
| clock being paid to do something else. If you'd like me to
| listen to your diatribe, I'd be more than happy to do
| provided it's at a 5-star restaurant of my choosing, where
| you'll be footing the entire bill for myself and my whole
| extended family in exchange for us hearing your opinions".
| Most have gotten the hint the first time, only used the
| second once.
| lencastre wrote:
| Said no one never :-) but it is funny, huge if true! I'll
| use it.
| NickC25 wrote:
| The latter has worked exactly one time (the only time
| I've had to use it), because it's effectively a nuclear
| bomb. The person was serious, but when I called to make
| the reservation, magically, the gentleman was not ready
| to plop down $200-300 a head for 20 people to listen to
| his political bullshit. He never talked politics with me
| at work again.
| wholinator2 wrote:
| What do you think would be effective models? I ask because
| your final two statements sound like effective topic
| changers. Is the difficulty that it takes so many words to
| say? Or that people generally feel awkward about those kinds
| of statements
| nitwit005 wrote:
| Society does provide ways, but people don't always care. They
| won't take a hint, because they want an argument. They'll
| keep trying to get what they want.
|
| My grandmother was one of those people. She wanted to "win
| debates", in her words. I'm not sure the winning ever
| happened, but she tried for decades.
| valyagolev wrote:
| Not engage on sensitive topics: yes, even with people you like
|
| Not engage on any topic outside the strictly necessary for
| work: a passive-aggressive way to keep the animosity forever
| asylteltine wrote:
| Should you though? Generally people tend to get fired when no one
| wants to work with them. Life is too short
| QuadrupleA wrote:
| These all seem so passive... various forms of "accept it and
| behave like the problem doesn't exist." What about kind/effective
| ways to give feedback or communicate about behavior that isn't
| working?
| dandare wrote:
| Because it almost never works.
| Joker_vD wrote:
| You seem to suppose that there is always some magic combination
| of words that would make the other side to suddenly change
| their behaviour. Unfortunately, there may be not: say, other
| other side actively doesn't want to change their behaviour
| (they're personally fine with it, and your proposed changes
| would inconvenience them ever so slightly), and then can afford
| to not change -- now what?
| ryandrake wrote:
| I always loved the scene[1] in _Star Trek: The Next Generation_
| season 7, where Data gives Wharf negative feedback about his
| job performance. It 's obviously fictional, but it's a pretty
| good example of assertively, professionally and politely giving
| constructive feedback that _can be accepted without losing
| face_ by the recipient. A lot of best practices shown in this
| one scene.
|
| 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdiQhMPt1Zo
| chriscjcj wrote:
| Gotta love that Picard Maneuver at the very end.
|
| According to the video below, it's Data's one and only!
|
| https://youtu.be/3ar-eJwgTsM?t=910
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Q's one and only was impressive!
|
| https://youtu.be/3ar-eJwgTsM?t=710
| tuckerpo wrote:
| That assumes that any random selection of the human population
| is receptive to critical feedback.
| stuckinhell wrote:
| If you they don't like you, you should assume they will try to
| get you fired. Document get ready to prove anything and
| everything to HR.
|
| 77% issues in business are really just people who dislike you
| personally.
| ecshafer wrote:
| You must work with psychopaths. If your reaction to not liking
| someone is to try and get them fired, there's something deeply
| wrong with you. I've worked with plenty of people that I don't
| want to be friends with, but you go to work, make some small
| talk, and do your job.
| stuckinhell wrote:
| yea I probably do, Fortune 500 companies attract very
| ambitious people.
| bsenftner wrote:
| Back when I worked in the incredibly dysfunctional video game
| industry, it was common for various key technical people to
| become soured over the course of the 18 months of 7 day weeks...
| After they'd threatened to quit multiple times, extorted the
| studio for as much raise as the studio could afford... they'd
| call me in to be the guy that talks his attitude down for the
| duration of the remainder of the production. I have the skills to
| evaporate anguish, overt aggression, and talk pragmatic sense
| into people pushed over the edge. You may have heard of the
| incredibly stressful day to day working at EA Sports; several of
| those games in the 90's were in serious risk of never completing
| because the team were going to kill one another - then they
| called me in.
| matt_s wrote:
| Enlighten us, gamedev whisperer. Seriously though - that had to
| be some stressful situations and a lot of people could benefit
| from hearing how you were able to de-escalate things.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >they'd call me in to be the guy that talks his attitude down
| for the duration of the remainder of the production.
|
| sounds like the solution is to not work 7 day weeks, or pay
| them more in some way (more vacation after shipping, more
| money). But I get it, that's unheard of for 90's game industry.
| jksmith wrote:
| Those five qualities are all great if they can be codified into a
| delivery system. Don't hate the player, hate the game. If you
| don't like the game, only one thing to argue about, which is
| changing the rules of the game. But then the fifth quality kicks
| in, which is "Letting Go." Trust/improve the process for the sake
| of using less energy.
| ape4 wrote:
| What if you're the one that's unliked ;)
| H8crilA wrote:
| When you reach the effective pay/level ceiling you can also
| decide to play along and wreck a little havoc by for example
| letting the asshole say too much in meetings or on corporate
| parties. It's a fine balancing game, where your goal is to create
| entertainment without negatively impacting your own emotional
| state. Most people are actually at some sort of a ceiling, for
| example due to inability or unwillingness to reach higher ("do
| politics") or to move to a more profitable location/company, even
| if they don't realize it.
| madamelic wrote:
| I disagree mostly.
|
| If they are that obviously disagreeable, others likely also have
| problems with them and they are just a difficult person to work
| with. Leadership that allows such a person to run unabated (ie:
| no corrective action nor termination) is ineffective and weak in
| my opinion, either purposefully or accidentally.
|
| If you find someone that is strongly disagreeable indefinitely
| and others in the company voice the same sentiment for long
| periods, you should leave as soon as possible because somewhere
| in the chain, there are problems no one is addressing and it will
| only get worse especially if it is a young company. People like
| this are a cancer and it will never result in anything good.
|
| If you find someone that is strongly disagreeable and others
| don't say the same (or even worse, the opposite!), there is a
| good chance _you_ are the problem and should check-in with
| yourself why.
|
| People don't rampage through life unchecked for no reason. There
| is a reason and both you can near immediately fix. Kow-towing to
| others and just dealing with it isn't solving the problem, it
| could even be making the situation worse.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| I think the issue is that it's rarely "obviously disagreeable".
| I read a lot of comments here and I'd say a good half of them
| feel slighted over very minor stuff. Stuff that affeccts a
| friendship but it really shouldn't impact your ability to work.
| bringing up Star Trek too much or your kids may be annoying to
| some, but isn't disciplinary worthy in my eyes
| flappyeagle wrote:
| There are 3 situations
|
| 1. No one is being an asshole, it's a real misunderstanding or
| difference of opinion. The article basically helps you in this
| circumstance. It's rare.
|
| 2. The other party is an asshole. They should be fired. If no one
| gets along with them this is probably true.
|
| 3. You are an asshole. You should be fired. If you find yourself
| always working with people you think are assholes this is
| probably true.
|
| Figure out if it's 1,2, or 3 first
| naasking wrote:
| I'm not sure being an asshole is enough to get fired if you're
| doing the job and not breaking any rules. I suppose it depends
| on what "being an asshole" means in this context. If it means
| rude or curt or whatever, then no. If it means actually
| breaking the rules, then sure.
| johncessna wrote:
| I think it's more likely that number 1 is the norm and 2 and 3
| are the rare exceptions. We aren't omniscient beings. Your
| perception that person A stole credit for your idea may forget
| that person A was involved or doesn't account for the work they
| did that you weren't aware of.
|
| 3 people sit around at a table during happy hour discussing
| ideas for an offsite.
|
| Person A suggests that they have it in Atlanta and provides
| good justification.
|
| Later, Person B follows up with their contact in finance to see
| if they can extend the budget, and gets it approved.
|
| Person C, who's job it was to plan the offsite, coordinates
| with the travel coordinators, gets invitations sent out, and
| other various
|
| Who's idea was this? Who deserves the credit?
|
| I think all 3 have claims and it'd be easy for each one of them
| to accuse the other 2 of idea theft or taking credit for things
| they didn't do. A contrived example, yes, but I think
| misunderstandings due to a lack of seeing all the
| information/data happens more often than people realize.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| The problem is when people are actively making your life harder
| just for their own ego.
|
| The best way to deal with it is to vote with your feet.
| danielovichdk wrote:
| I am that guy. Really.
|
| I don't try hard to be someone others don't like. But I try with
| every inch to ask why at things I don't understand, and quite
| frankly I demand answers.
|
| I very rarely believe in anybody professionally, because people
| has a tendency to nurse their subjective opinions and thought
| more than commit to long reasonings of why and find evidens for
| their claims.
|
| I don't make friends at work. In my almost 25 years in software
| engineering and management of teams I go to work for getting
| things done and backed by as sound proof as possible. I keep
| track of this, write everything down and hate verbal
| communication because it blurs agreements and is subject to lie
| from other parts.
|
| I am actually a cool guy at night. I have a rich family life and
| a big social network. I am mentally fit and in good shape. But
| don't fuck around when you work with me because I go hard on
| being absolute surgical on point.
|
| Call it what you want. I call it being professional.
| reportgunner wrote:
| The fact that the article recommends being respectful, having
| integrity and trying to learn and improve from the interactions
| says a lot about the people who are not like you.
| pvg wrote:
| I think you also have to recognize not everyone shares your
| dedication to the study of the blade.
| madamelic wrote:
| The problem isn't necessarily the people like you, in my
| opinion, who have the experience to back their words up.
|
| The real problems are the expert beginners who think they know
| everything because they read 3 books or something.
|
| If someone came in with vastly more experience than me, I am
| not going toe-to-toe with them unless I know for a fact they
| are wrong because I trust they know what they are doing. As
| long as they aren't yelling at me or demeaning, I am on the
| train of helping them do what they want.
|
| There's a difference between authority and being an asshole in
| my opinion.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| I privately dread being that person that is unliked. So much so
| that at times I fear it is becoming self-perpetuating. I mostly
| shut up, for fear of being misunderstood.
|
| Maybe I should use this as a handout.
| gemstones wrote:
| As in software, the best tool for avoiding errors is to not have
| the software in the first place.
|
| If you must work with someone, or consider yourself to have an
| ethical obligation to follow this, this is good advice.
|
| If you don't...
|
| Just slowwwly remove your touchpoints with them. Freeze them out.
| Go through other channels. If you do this right, the person will
| feel like you have just gradually drifted apart, but won't be
| able to pinpoint a clear cause.
|
| You don't have to try and get them fired, or anything (and that
| may backfire on you, so I don't recommend doing it.) But if
| enough people do this, then they will gradually be the most
| replaceable person on the team, and they may be let go
| regardless.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >Just slowwwly remove your touchpoints with them. Freeze them
| out. Go through other channels. If you do this right, the
| person will feel like you have just gradually drifted apart,
| but won't be able to pinpoint a clear cause.
|
| Doesn't work if they're leading the project. This is also a
| very childish way of dealing with problems. Part of your job is
| to be an adult and learn how to _work_ with people you don 't
| like. Not how to avoid them. It's a critical skill to success
| in this industry.
| gemstones wrote:
| Oh it's not good advice for everyone! If they're a lead on a
| team you must interface with, they fall into my "you must
| work with them" bucket, and then the article is pretty good
| advice.
|
| Eh, I disagree that it's childish advice! It works out pretty
| well for everyone except the person being frozen out - no
| matter if you're a child or an adult.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >Eh, I disagree that it's childish advice! It works out
| pretty well for everyone except the person being frozen out
|
| then that person posts on hacker news why no one seems to
| want to "be an adult" , how they are blocked on tasks due
| to slow communication, and overall feel the workplace is
| hostile.
|
| And the chain of apathy continues. And people wonder why
| work is so miserable. PAy can be a factor, but it usually
| isn't in tech.
| tikhonj wrote:
| Sometimes the most effective way to work with a person is to
| work around them.
|
| _Always_ resorting to that isn 't mature or professional,
| but neither is not recognizing when that's the best option.
| BeetleB wrote:
| An article from Forbes giving tips that are implicitly stating
| you should stay in an abusive relationship? I'm not surprised.
|
| While these aren't bad tips per se, the article is sorely
| incomplete. Where are the tips on how to escalate? Having
| conversations with management (and/or peers) on why bad behavior
| is being enabled? Where's the tip on leaving?
|
| My last job had a brilliant asshole. Within a year it was clear
| the management knew and did not want to do anything about it.
| Every person in the team was tolerating the poor behavior. So as
| soon as I wrapped up the project I was working on, I switched
| teams.
|
| He continued to be a headache in that team. Finally, about 2
| years later I found out that one person who had suffered
| significantly was thinking of quitting. I let him know that if he
| wanted to escalate to HR (specifically for harassment - it was
| getting that far out of hand), that I had kept notes of his
| behavior (with dates, etc) during my time there. He decided he
| would escalate and informed his manager. The manager said "Give
| me a bit of time and let me deal with this." Soon after, the
| asshole went on vacation and soon after that it was announced
| that he had decided not to return. Whether he was fired or
| convinced to quit - I don't know.
|
| The real question is: Why do things have to reach the point of
| harassment before action is taken? If you're in that sort of org,
| don't stay there. It will be a magnet for such folks.
|
| I do feel sorry for the guy. We had lots of points of connection
| (as per this article). I did empathize with him on many things.
| He actually campaigned to get me that job! He could have been a
| great employee if he changed his world view and behaviors a bit.
| But social proof was against him and there was no one he looked
| up to who could mentor him on his behavior.
| blablabla123 wrote:
| > If you're in that sort of org, don't stay there. It will be a
| magnet for such folks.
|
| That's true. I've been at a job where people routinely talked
| badly about people in other teams but also a colleague I
| closely worked with was constantly accusing me of breaking
| agreements, going behind management's back. At first I didn't
| take all of this very seriously and thought trying to say as
| little as possible will be the best strategy. Eventually though
| my manager asked me directly and I mentioned these things. He
| said he'll take action and eventually also HR got in the loop.
| Some things happened but the general issues persisted. FWIW I
| heard colleagues even saying really insulting things about HR.
| Exoristos wrote:
| > He could have been a great employee if he changed his world
| view and behaviors a bit. But social proof was against him
|
| What does this actually mean? Can you give any examples?
| BeetleB wrote:
| Lengthy comment below. The application of social proof to my
| ex-coworker is at the end.
|
| Social Proof is a concept in the book _Influence_ by
| Cialdini. I strongly recommend the book - fairly
| entertaining.
|
| The idea is that your brain relies on people you consider to
| be your peers/in-group for many things: customs, social
| norms, and even truth. Your brain usually looks to them for
| guidance on the above, and often ignores others.
|
| This is why the Bystander Effect is particularly pernicious.
| When something horrible is going on, and you see your friends
| observing it and doing it, your brain is primed to say things
| "My friends accept this, so there's probably nothing wrong
| with this" or "My friends are not interfering. I probably
| shouldn't either" When someone does interject and help, it's
| often by someone who does _not_ consider the other bystanders
| as part of his peer group. This is expanded on here:
| https://blog.nawaz.org/posts/2017/May/social-proof-and-
| the-b...
|
| I often deal with this at work. I've had fellow coworkers
| make a claim, and I show a (simple) mathematical proof
| disproving their claim. The outcome is usually one of the
| following:
|
| 1. They accept they were wrong, but it doesn't stick in their
| mind. A week later they're parroting the same wrong thing.
|
| 2. They look at their peers in the room, and ask "Have any of
| you heard of this?" If no one has, they outright reject my
| proof without finding any flaws. This was shocking to me, but
| it's happened so often at the workplace I find it normal now.
|
| I once got a bad rating at work because a particular circuit
| simulation wasn't behaving the way they expected it, and they
| insisted I was either running it wrong or had messed up the
| circuit file. I hadn't. I asked why they expected it to
| behave differently. The answer was always "We've been doing
| this for over a decade and the capacitance is never sensitive
| to the following inputs." This was tribal knowledge and I was
| the lone person questioning it.
|
| The circuits expert was on vacation. The work stalled for 2
| weeks where I pretended to find the flaw, and had to answer
| daily that I hadn't found it. Upon the expert's return, I go
| to him and he sends out an email to all of them saying "Your
| beliefs are wrong. The capacitance can change with those
| inputs. There's nothing wrong with the simulation."
|
| But the damage was done. I was still viewed negatively. And
| I'm sure if I ask them now, they'll go back to "the
| capacitance never changes with those inputs" - it's what
| everyone else believes around them.
|
| I've seen this in the SW world as well. Actually, much more
| often. Avoid a quicksort injection attack by randomizing the
| list (O(N) operation) first, and a room full of programmers
| laughed at me saying "That's silly! We're trying to sort a
| list and you're jumbling it up first. That's just going to
| make sorting harder!" (And no, they did not have an alternate
| solution to the attack).
|
| I thought I was immune to such behavior. Surely, if someone
| comes to me with objective advice/evidence, I'll listen to
| him! But after I read that book, and as I got older, I
| encountered a number of situations where I was in the wrong,
| and realized that at some point in the past I had been
| advised on the correct path, but did not take it. Why did I
| not take it? The answer was always social proof: The person
| was not in my peer group, and so my brain always had an
| excuse. _That person doesn 't understand my perspective._ Or
| _That person lives a very different life. I don 't want to
| live his life._
|
| Random example from HN: Go search for Sarno and his treatment
| for back pain. Read up on Sarno's views on what caused back
| pain (and some other pains). For someone like me, his theory
| and solution is very much nonsensical pseudoscience. Had most
| people come to me with it, I would have dismissed it. But
| here I was on HN, with a _significant_ number of folks
| stating how their back pain was gone for good - at times
| after years of suffering - by following Sarno 's advice.
|
| This is my crowd[1], so suddenly I did consider reading up on
| it and applying it.[2]
|
| Getting back to my ex-coworker. He came from a culture of
| extreme competence. Very good at math, physics, and
| programming. Knew the low level details really well. This was
| considered a bare minimum to graduate from his elite
| university (not in the US). He felt all universities should
| have those minimum requirements, and since they didn't,
| someone had to protect teams at the company from them. He
| couldn't control hiring, but could control quality within the
| team.
|
| By having that world view, he had automatically made all his
| teammates be part of the out-group. They were not his peers,
| and so he would ignore any advice they could give. Hence, no
| one was in a situation to gently steer him to better
| behavior.
|
| [1] A tell tale sign of social proof in action is when
| someone says "I know it sounds crazy, but you should listen
| to this guy. _He 's one of us._
|
| [2] Sorry for the non-spoiler. His advice didn't help me with
| my pain. But I totally accept it did for others, and do
| suggest it to others.
| amelius wrote:
| How to work with someone who:
|
| 1. you have to work with remotely, and
|
| 2. never reads your entire e-mails, only the first sentence or
| (if you're lucky) the first paragraph.
|
| Any ideas?
| munchbunny wrote:
| Why do you "have to" work with them?
|
| I think the nature of your dependency on them and their
| dependency on you figures heavily into your viable options to
| address the overall communication problem. In my experience
| this kind of issue is often unique to the specific pair of
| people.
| amelius wrote:
| Honestly, if I could, I would replace them by chatgpt. It
| does a better job at reading my instructions.
| throwbadubadu wrote:
| Condense email, always a good idea to reflect, e.g I can
| quickly write too long texts where you can cut half. Condensing
| down to one sentence is maybe hard though.
|
| Alternatively, write multiple one sentence emails... :D
|
| Seriously? Ask him to read better an/or do more calls, if they
| work better?
|
| If nothing helps, fire/report/escalate whatever option you
| have, as simple as that, or run for yourself ;)
| edgarvaldes wrote:
| Shorter emails? I'm serious. I try to write a draft, then edit
| it until the core message is left. Then, "check this docs/let's
| have a virtual meet" for more context.
| bjornlouser wrote:
| Add a hook in the first sentence of your email that allows them
| to shine, even if it's a false lie.
|
| "I'm having trouble figuring out this piece of the critical
| path"
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| Put the essence into the very first sentence of the email:
| bottom line up front (BLUF) [1] [2]
|
| [1] https://www.animalz.co/blog/bottom-line-up-front/
|
| [2] https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-to-write-email-with-military-
| pre...
| ryandrake wrote:
| BLUF[1]. Put the key point you want to convey (or question you
| want answered) in the very first line of the E-mail, in
| boldface or color or whatever as the TLDR. Then go into detail
| further down, that you know your colleague may or may not read.
|
| Don't mix topics for these people. Send multiple E-mails.
| Chances are, they use their Inbox as a TODO list, and if they
| have an E-mail with multiple topics it could get lost.
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication)
| kdazzle wrote:
| > never reads your entire emails
|
| That's basically every executive, or most managers, so only
| lead with the most important bullets and put details way at the
| bottom
| corobo wrote:
| Pick up the phone.
|
| I know, I know, as a millenial I hate to do it too. But it does
| get things done much smoother and much quicker when someone
| isn't that great of a text-based communicator in my experience.
| 3minus1 wrote:
| talk with them? Explain with examples how their behavior
| impacts your ability to do your job and ask them what they
| recommend for working better together.
| bombcar wrote:
| Write what you need in the first sentence.
|
| Maybe include extra detail below, but reduce it to one
| sentence. You need something, ask for it.
|
| Honestly, it's the biggest part of business communication. That
| first sentence.
| willseth wrote:
| This is bland advice and only applies in trivial situations where
| the colleague has bad habits, quirks, etc., which is really most
| people. Everyone can be annoying if you look for that
| perspective, but most people are...fine. If someone is actually
| manipulative or abusive, this advice is tantamount to "chill out,
| and let them walk all over you." Actual shitty people don't
| usually think they are being shitty and/or they have very
| powerful rationalization engines and/or short memories. For these
| actual shitty people, showing respect or "finding a connection"
| won't stop their shitty behavior, so what's the point? Maybe if
| taking the high road makes you feel better, but really if you
| find yourself stuck working with one of these people, you should
| GTFO. That is the critical missing piece from this article.
| throwitaway222 wrote:
| I was that "chill out, and let them walk all over you" person
| for someone that started helping our company as a contractor.
| He had a very dominant personality, of which no one at our 4
| person shop had. A year later the CEO announced he was our VP
| of engineering. He made comments about women, made
| inappropriate jokes a lot. The remaining 3 years that I was at
| the company, his personality fused into everything and every
| new hire. Everyone picked up his attitude, jokes and lack of
| seriousness. Could easily be a textbook definition of how toxic
| behavior spreads. Even me, eventually I found myself cracking
| jokes about customers to please this person.
|
| I finally left, comically after this person left - the company
| now dangling and struggling. I joined a new company, and I
| found it refreshing to see people take things seriously again.
| Huge difference.
|
| So yes, you should GTFO if this happens to you.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| > This is bland advice and only applies in trivial situations
| where the colleague has bad habits, quirks, etc.
|
| given the responses here, it sounds like it should help a few
| people's problems.
| 5cott0 wrote:
| "You run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole.
| You run into assholes all day, you're the asshole." - Raylan
| Givens
|
| "If you're gonna keep talkin I'm gonna put you in the trunk" -
| also Raylan Givens
| outworlder wrote:
| When it comes to jobs, you could be standing in Asshole
| Central, though.
| JoeyJoJoJr wrote:
| I don't really like that first quote because, at least from
| what I have observed, really shitty people tend to operate in
| circles, as do really great people. It is perhaps not until you
| make a massive life change, such as moving city, that you
| realise that assholes were dominating all of your previous
| social circles.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| I mean, that is a valid solution. If you're a highly liberal
| person and you're in conservative central, you will be seen
| as the asshole. Or maybe it's something more tame like being
| a sports buff outside of work among a sea of techies who talk
| about nothing but programming. It's all relative.
|
| Either way, the quote to me reflects a need to either change
| yourself or your environment.
| josefrichter wrote:
| I once had a colleague who hated me to the point she refused to
| talk to me. The weird thing was I had no idea why. Even when I
| offered her to have an open conversation, to clarify what
| happened, and how can I possibly fix it, she just didn't respond.
| Was kinda difficult to work with her :-)
| romanows wrote:
| Could your manager have helped figure this out? Even if they
| can't change anything, it can be helpful to loop your manager
| in so they aren't surprised if a simmering conflict erupts down
| the road.
| davidw wrote:
| I will hand this out to future co-workers by way of introducing
| myself...
| zubairq wrote:
| Great tips. Thanks!
| llbeansandrice wrote:
| This feels like the boomer advice my parents would give me when I
| just want to rant about my job or a coworker. It's also so
| incredibly generic and bland that it really only applies if
| someone is being kind of annoying rather than weapons grade
| incompetent or manipulative.
|
| Seems right up Forbes' alley tho.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >when I just want to rant about my job or a coworker.
|
| Are you a man? It's a pretty common action for a man to want to
| "solve a problem" when hearing a conversation based around
| problems. Even with modern conversation we don't really have
| much language to codify when we "just want to rant". It should
| be felt by body language and my autistic mind never catches
| that. It just feels even lazier to sit there and listen to
| someone dump with no recourse, I feel helpless.
|
| So I get it. I don't have an answer and I ironically did it
| right here, but just some consideration from the other side of
| the fence.
|
| >it really only applies if someone is being kind of annoying
| rather than weapons grade incompetent or manipulative.
|
| sounds like half the problems being vented out here.
| watwut wrote:
| It was literally his/her parents, not OP who would try to
| give advice.
|
| Also, as someone who works in male dominated profession, men
| rant all the time, complain all the time and do not want to
| hear solutions when that goes on.
|
| Just assume they just want to rant. I tend to give advice
| too, but I try to hold up unless I am really sure, cause most
| of the time people just want to rant.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| [delayed]
| tcgv wrote:
| Great tips. They may seem obvious, but often aren't. When I was
| an individual contributor, I encountered my fair share of
| occasional work disagreements, and fortunately, was able to learn
| and grow from those experiences without much hassle. I consider
| myself more relaxed than the average person, so you really need
| to make an effort to get me stressed. Working in environments
| with a balanced work culture also help.
|
| After becoming a manager I realized that not only do I need to
| continue handling occasional personal disagreements with
| colleagues, but I'm also now responsible for coaching my
| reportees on how to effectively navigate their own conflicts and
| occasionally stepping in to mediate. It's been an interesting
| challenge managing people and helping them become more happy,
| productive and achieve our business goals as a team.
|
| Shameless plug: In a related matter, I recently wrote simple
| guidelines and examples on how to communicate better when
| receiving requests from colleagues, which I noticed is one of the
| many ways people start developing a negative opinion of their
| counterpart, fostering conflicts:
|
| - https://thomasvilhena.com/2023/10/guideliness-for-requests-f...
| ctrlp wrote:
| "He that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do
| you another, than he whom you yourself have obliged."
| todotask wrote:
| My coworker, a Singaporean gentleman, was an older man who often
| communicated in a way that was awkward and confusing, making work
| with him a challenge. He had a habit of spamming Buddhist topics
| in WhatsApp and boasting about his achievements, especially his
| daughter, in a manner that felt unprofessional. What made it
| worse was that he would intentionally give hard massages on my
| shoulder behind me when I had repeatedly mentioned that I had an
| injury on my right joint arm.
|
| In the end, the situation became so untenable that I felt
| compelled to resign from the Japanese MNC. As for my colleague, I
| hear he's planning to retire with his wife in China, where he can
| hopefully enjoy an affordable living standard.
|
| I would say that he has an interesting work attitude.
|
| In other workplaces, I was surprised that the company hired a
| male colleague who had the habit of touching or molesting other
| male colleagues.
| neilv wrote:
| > _and 87% have worked with a toxic boss, according to a poll_
|
| How many bosses have those polled had? (What's the likelihood
| that any given boss is toxic?)
| watwut wrote:
| Toxic people are more likely to seek positions in power. They
| are also more likely to keep and gain them, because they have
| less issues to harm competitors (for example by intentional
| gossip) and are more likely to say pleasing lies.
| onetimeuse92304 wrote:
| Am I the only one that sees the most important point is missing?
|
| 0. Focus on facts in any conversation with or about the person.
| Keep anything that is not obviously related to work products out
| of it.
|
| Yes, especially when you both don't like each other but there is
| willingness on both sides to achieve same or at least similar
| goal and have productive relationship, keeping emotions and
| opinions out of it and focusing on just the facts is, in my
| opinion, the best way to deal with the situation.
|
| Also, don't comment, spread rumors of any kind about the person
| you don't like. I tell other people "I may not like the person
| but I don't find it a problem as long as we both want to achieve
| the same positive goal for the organisation."
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| I appreciate these articles but there's always something they
| overlook: what if the other party doesn't want to play ball? You
| see it in politics, relationships, business - if the other side
| is in "I win, you lose" mode, none of these coping strategies
| really work. That's the article I want to see written.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-29 23:02 UTC)