[HN Gopher] How to grow professional relationships
___________________________________________________________________
How to grow professional relationships
Author : Liriel
Score : 298 points
Date : 2024-12-04 09:42 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (tej.as)
(TXT) w3m dump (tej.as)
| eleveriven wrote:
| Abandoning lost causes can be one of the toughest but most
| freeing decisions in relationships. I once worked with a
| colleague who seemed completely resistant to collaboration. No
| matter how much I tried to engage or find common ground, they
| kept shutting down any attempt at teamwork. But one day, I
| realized I was investing so much energy into something that
| wasn't going anywhere.
| bravetraveler wrote:
| Having been/am the other side this... they're probably relieved
| too. It can be counter-intuitive. Despite nature... there _is_
| potential for the desired outcome - with less pressure, honest
| _[not forced]_ engagement.
|
| Personally, my apprehension comes from within. It's nothing to
| do with anything 'outside'. My water level is different, that's
| all. Most reasonable people _feel_ overbearing - it 's on me,
| not them.
| eleveriven wrote:
| Hmm, your analogy about water levels is so relatable. It
| captures how people's capacity to engage can differ without
| it being anyone's fault
| bravetraveler wrote:
| Thank you, indeed. I can't take much credit... I heard it
| somewhere and think on it too much. We all carry different
| amounts and it's not all visible :) This affects us
| differently when things are smooth, rocky, or even just
| _changing_.
|
| I have been exceedingly lucky so far to have mostly-
| cooperative environments, perhaps too much. I've been
| enabled to a few degrees
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| Exactly! And there's billions of people on the planet--at
| some point, people meet people with similar water levels.
| alexpotato wrote:
| > No matter how much I tried to engage or find common ground,
| they kept shutting down any attempt at teamwork.
|
| This reminds me of a story from when I was in business school.
| We were assigned groups for project work and it was very
| difficult if not impossible to transfer out of a group. This
| was by design b/c the point was to teach the students to deal
| with interpersonal issues and group dynamics.
|
| My friend was in a group with someone we will call Bob. Bob
| always showed up late, argued about every assignment, would
| debate for hours about why he couldn't do a task etc.
|
| Eventually, my friend just declared "task bankruptcy" with Bob
| and gave him no work to do. Why? He realized it was easier to
| give Bob nothing to do and just redistribute the tasks to the
| rest of the group versus trying to get Bob to do anything.
|
| I should add, it seems that Bob had some kind of special status
| with the school as he always showed up late to exams, was able
| to turn in work late etc.
|
| In closing, a lot of this is reminding me of the "CIA guide to
| corporate sabotage": https://www.corporate-rebels.com/blog/cia-
| field-manual
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| Did they consider kicking Bob out of the group?
| alexpotato wrote:
| This was highly discouraged as the whole point of the group
| projects was to teach how to deal with group dynamics.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| Isn't a part of dealing with group dynamics though
| recognizing when there is harm in/to the group and
| removing it? (sorry)
| antisthenes wrote:
| If the whole point was to teach how to deal with group
| dynamics, then kicking Bob out should have been rewarded
| with an automatic 100% Grade.
|
| But since you mentioned "tasks", I assume there was
| actual work beyond chatting up your teammates. So your
| description is inaccurate.
| beryilma wrote:
| I know of a graduate-level software engineering course at a
| reputable US university, where getting kicked out of the
| project group is a possibility and gets the person an
| automatic F grade.
| anshulbhide wrote:
| In most b-school group projects, the work is fairly easy
| enough such that the headache of kicking someone is out is
| probably greater than just doing the work amongst the
| remaining members.
| alexpotato wrote:
| This is exactly it.
|
| In order, from most painful to least, in my story:
|
| - Kicking Bob out of the group
|
| - Getting Bob to do a fair share of the work
|
| - Getting Bob to do ANY work
|
| - Having Bob do no work and have everyone else share the
| load
| anal_reactor wrote:
| We have a guy who honestly tries to do his best, but he's a
| fucking PITA. Makes wrong decisions, drags discussions
| endlessly, prioritizes things that don't matter while
| derailing important projects. I realized I don't need to care
| about my work to collect paycheck, so I just avoid working
| with him, and if that's unavoidable, I make sure to write
| down my concerns, and have a proof that "the team's decision
| was different from what I suggested"
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| This, exactly. Glad this point came across clearly and power to
| you!
| blitzar wrote:
| _he 's just not that into you_
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| they're*
| mkmk wrote:
| On the practical side of things, one important behavior that I
| see people frequently forget is the importance of following up.
| This is probably the biggest differentiator between relationships
| that languish in the early stages, versus those that progress
| along the author's continuum.
|
| It's always a bit strange when you only hear from people once
| every few years, just as they need an intro or career advice or
| whatever- the beginning of those conversations is usually a bit
| of sheepish catch-up on what happened after you last spoke with
| them. Similarly, there have been times when I have felt like a
| dope after realizing that I failed to follow up myself after a
| call, and am again reaching out for another reason.
|
| However, when you follow up with someone as simple as "Thanks for
| connecting me with so and so, we had a great chat" or "I tried
| that thing you suggested, here's how it worked out", you build
| mutual trust and enthusiasm for a successful outcome to the
| conversation you had. It's a genuine and thoughtful way to grow
| your relationship.
| jameshush wrote:
| I'll add to this: If you want to practice following up but are
| afraid of "bugging" someone, start by wishing 1-3 people happy
| birthday every day. I put every person I know birthday on one
| giant Google calendar and wish people happy every day. It's a
| super easy way to at least say "hi" to someone once a year.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| I love this.
| sfink wrote:
| I tried this, but it didn't work very well for me. Maybe I
| was just catching people at a bad time? They'd always brush
| me off with some version of "uh, it isn't my
| birthday" "you've said that to me every day for a
| week, please stop" "stay away from me".
|
| What could I be doing wrong? Am I just choosing the wrong
| people to try to befriend?
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| I think you might be choosing the wrong people. :grimacing:
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| > "you've said that to me every day for a week, please
| stop"
|
| Did you, or didn't you ??
| blitzar wrote:
| > bit strange when you only hear from people once every few
| years, just as they need an intro or career advice or whatever
|
| This might out me as a psycopath, however, cut to the f'ing
| chase. If it is a transactional conversation don't insult my
| intelligence by pretending that it isn't. Obvioulsy this can
| create a problem as I tend towards "Do unto others as you would
| have them do unto you".
|
| If something is within my means and the person hasn't made it
| onto my _shit list_ I love to help out, it 's what makes
| getting up in the morning worth while. Unfortunately we are all
| far more powerless than anyone can imagine and actually being
| able to do more than point people in the right direction, offer
| advice or just talk to someone is incredibly rare.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| You're not a psychopath: I feel the same. However I still
| value showing them honor so I often deal with them with more
| kindness externally than I feel internally, recognizing my
| internal feeling is my own issue not theirs.
| anal_reactor wrote:
| > Obvioulsy this can create a problem as I tend towards "Do
| unto others as you would have them do unto you".
|
| The fact that most people enjoy exactly the opposite of what
| I do was revolutionary to me, really explained a lot, and
| allowed me to navigate social interactions better.
|
| Having said this, I don't see the ROI on pleasing people I
| don't like. I try to gauge whether someone has the same vibe
| as I do, and if that's not the case, then I'll be polite but
| that's it.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| What are some primary reasons you don't like some people?
| Is it just a vibe mismatch like the chemical reactions the
| article suggests?
| anal_reactor wrote:
| First, most common mismatch: different goals. The things
| I'm trying to achieve are not the things someone else is
| trying to achieve, which makes cooperation difficult. Or
| we might be trying to achieve the same thing, effectively
| competing for the same resources.
|
| Second, less common but still common mismatch: different
| emotional responses. If an event happens and I react in
| way A while the other person reacts in way B, either of
| us needs to suppress the emotional reaction, which is
| exhausting. I'm not willing to do that, unless
| genuineness is not expected by definition (at work, at
| family reunion).
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| I love how self-aware you are about this. Honestly if I
| encounter the first mismatch I tend to operate just like
| you: will honor the person but also move away and towards
| my goal. Thanks for sharing!
| polygotdomain wrote:
| Psychopath? No. But it's also not insulting their
| intelligence by having that little catch up. You're asking
| someone for something that they don't have to do for you.
| Showing up in their inbox saying "Give me something" might
| seem to you like you're being concise and to the point, but
| to the person reading it, there's not much motivation for why
| they should give you that thing you need.
|
| The catchup, as mundane and obvious as it is, at least
| signals to the person that you see some value in them and
| value your relationship, even if it's transactional in
| nature. Does it need to go on for paragraphs or multiple
| emails back and forth? Absolutely not, but having some lead
| in makes it less like you're only concerned about what you
| can get from the person.
|
| Would you rather a waiter just come up to your table and say
| "Order!?" or have a little bit of pleasantries before asking
| what you'd like to eat. There's no more transactional
| relationship than a diner and a waiter, but most people would
| prefer the latter.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| This also varies a lot across cultures: in Germany, people
| actually expect waiters to show up and say "Order?" and
| sometimes get irritated when they're overly bubbly. In the
| USA, the opposite is expected.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Right, it's about showing that you respect the social and
| cultural expectation, not about the specific expectation.
|
| Some people have a very hard time adapting or accepting
| different cultural expectations, and their world is
| necessarily narrowed. It always makes sense logically,
| "Why should I have to play these games to show that I
| mean well, people should judge me by my more meaningful
| actions" but another way of looking at it is it's not
| worth it to them to make the microscopic effort to
| communicate willingness. If they're not willing to make
| even that little effort to make communication easier,
| what else are they unwilling to do?
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| Yeah, strong agree.
| the_snooze wrote:
| Those pleasantries also keep the door open for more
| interactions. If you ask someone for help, being sociable
| will make them feel at ease and more open to asking your
| insights too, and that's a win-win for everyone. And
| really, that's how personal and professional networks are
| formed: through small gestures you do consistently over
| time, you build up comfortable interactions with the people
| around you.
| LoganDark wrote:
| I nearly lol'd at the people immediately jumping to "you're
| not a psychopath", as if that's a bad thing. Psychopathy can
| be essentially the selective inhibition of empathy (not to be
| confused with a total lack of empathy as in ASPD). If you
| choose not to feel empathy for people who are trying to
| small-talk you then that could technically be called
| psychopathy. And also a relatively common symptom of autism!
| (I, also, hate small talk in many transactional
| conversations, and am autistic.)
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| This isn't entirely accurate. Psychopathy involves impaired
| affective (emotional) empathy as a core trait, while
| _cognitive empathy_ remains intact or can even be enhanced.
| This is slightly different from autism, which typically
| shows impaired cognitive empathy but intact _affective
| empathy_.
|
| Psychopathy is not about choosing not to feel empathy -
| it's a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by
| persistent deficits in emotional responsiveness and
| empathic concern for others (meaning they _can 't_).
| -"opathy" is usually a disorder outside of one's control.
| LoganDark wrote:
| I think you might have run into the exact thing I put in
| my comment: "not to be confused with ASPD", which is also
| sometimes called sociopathy. I use psychopathy and
| sociopathy differently (such that psychopathy is chosen
| while sociopathy is inherent) and choices like these can
| be an autistic trait. I'm not talking about empathic
| _struggles_ , but rather a _choice_ not to care too much
| about someone 's emotions in a particular context. I
| don't know how to square these with the commonly accepted
| definitions because the commonly accepted definitions are
| kind of ridiculous (the terms psychopathy, sociopathy,
| and ASPD are collectively sort of ambiguous because they
| all each mean everything somehow; nearly everyone is
| confused about them in some way).
|
| This is why I said psychopathy "can be" the selective
| inhibition of empathy, because by some definitions that's
| what it is. Other definitions like yours essentially
| define it as what I call sociopathy (simply being without
| empathy in the first place). I don't claim my definition
| to be the only definition because psychopathy can sort of
| mean either thing depending on who you ask, but I use my
| definition just for the sake of argument.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| Heard! Sorry if I came across as combative! I spent way
| too much time around clinicians and tend to stick to
| formal definitions a little too much.
| LoganDark wrote:
| The thing about psychopathy sort of being defined either
| way depending on who you ask is that we don't necessarily
| know for sure which definition is right anymore. They're
| essentially both "correct in a way". The term also has a
| somewhat muddied history that makes it difficult to
| figure out what it was truly originally supposed to mean,
| so we don't even know which definition today is
| _supposed_ to be the right one.
| bityard wrote:
| I get it, as engineers we value efficiency and truth above
| almost everything else. But most people are not like us.
|
| They want to be appreciated, acknowledged, and seen above
| almost everything else. If you call up an old acquaintance
| and start the conversation by asking if they know of any job
| openings, you will be seen as someone who only values what
| they can DO for you, instead of who are they ARE to you.
| Nobody likes being a tool, they like being a friend, and like
| feeling that they are doing something good for someone that
| likes them for who they are.
|
| Now, we ALL know that the call out of the blue to catch up
| often has an ulterior motive but it's polite (and necessary)
| to at least PRETEND that the ask is not the main reason you
| called.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| Exactly. Humans are so much more irrational and illogical
| than the machines we know. And this is a feature, not a
| bug.
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| Nit: If it's irrational and it works, it's not irrational
| Vampiero wrote:
| It's a feature if you're neurotypical
| Aeolun wrote:
| You don't even have to pretend that the ask is not the main
| reason you called. Of course you call me because you need
| something, I do this too.
|
| But if you called, and you are not even _slightly_
| interested in catching up, that just makes you a rude ass.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| One of the benefits of playing the game is signaling that
| you're willing to follow norms even if they don't directly
| benefit you or make sense to you. Someone refusing to play
| along with anything that doesn't immediately make sense to
| them or reasonate with them is a yellow flag, since it shows
| that they don't value the social contract and aren't willing
| to humble themselves or make other people the priority.
|
| We're social animals, and when people overtly signal that
| they're disinterested in the existing paradigm, they're
| communicating that they're going to be exhausting to interact
| with, since you're going to have to explain and justify every
| individual thing you want out of them that they don't already
| understand, and they'll never just go along with things for
| the sake of others.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| I know a few people like this and can confirm: they're
| extremely difficult to be around and take pride in it,
| feeling great about being "free thinkers" and breaking from
| the "herd mentality".
|
| This I feel is unfortunately counter to the design of
| humankind, where we are--as you said--social animals and
| the only way to change for the better--at a species level--
| is to change together.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Isn't that basis for criticism a little broad? It sounds
| like you're saying that vegetarianism, every religion,
| and a higher than average scrupulousness towards not
| littering are in the same category as picking your nose
| during a one on one.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| I don't think so: those are strong convictions that
| people have according to their value system and moral
| code and it's their right to have them. I'm not talking
| about that at all. To me, those are "closed handed"
| issues: we respect them without negotiation.
|
| I'm talking about "open handed" issues where people tend
| to debate and negotiate: preferences, not convictions--if
| 3/4 friends want to go get a sandwich, but 1/4 insists on
| either salad or "go without me", this can be taxing on
| the relationship--especially if they also are usually
| open to sandwiches and have no strong conviction against
| it.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Do you find that vegetarians, the religious, and people
| that are mindful about littering frequently take vocal
| pride in being "free thinkers"?
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| The ones that I know don't, but I'm sure some do. Either
| way, these aren't the people I'm talking about.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| I love this very much and strongly agree: I hate receiving
| those sheepish catch ups, especially when I anticipate an ask
| coming. In fact, if I sense I want to make an ask but I haven't
| spoken with someone in a long time, I just won't ask them for
| the thing because we don't have that context/rapport yet: it's
| a way of honoring them.
|
| Continuing to make it practical, one thing that has served me
| well was to maintain a list of friends (I still do this) and
| text them at least once every day just following up or checking
| in. Some like it, some don't. For those that don't, that's
| their choice. The topics around abandoning lost causes kind of
| apply there: not that these people are lost causes, but daily
| checkins are. That's okay, to each their own. :)
| carlosjobim wrote:
| > an ask
|
| I only see people writing this here in HN. Is it some
| expression from old that has been revived or is it some
| activist thing?
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| It's just shorthand for when people want to ask for things,
| common among investors (so, YC/HN).
| hollerith wrote:
| So a request, then.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| yes
| smcin wrote:
| It's techspeak for 'a request'.
| caseyohara wrote:
| I find it interesting that techspeak has a way of turning
| verbs into nouns. Ask, invite, compute.
| LoganDark wrote:
| Is "an invite" techspeak?
| tayo42 wrote:
| I thought it's corporate America jargon
| caseyohara wrote:
| Technologists seem to have a special proclivity for
| linguistic nominalization (functional transformation of a
| verb or adjective into a noun).
|
| Examples: build, patch, commit, deploy, sync, mock,
| update, upgrade, deliverable, standup, kickoff, resolve,
| retry. There are probably many more.
| aragonite wrote:
| OED added this use of "ask" (as in a big/huge ask) in 2005
| and said it's originally Australian.
|
| https://english.stackexchange.com/a/111601
| lovich wrote:
| Relationships are like a garden, they require continual,
| repeated effort to maintain.
|
| It doesn't need to be an onerous amount of effort, but reaching
| out to people to shoot the shit once even a year is often
| enough to maintain the relationship for professional networks
| at least.
|
| In software we have an unfortunate amount of people who don't
| value social connections at all so we end up with a large
| tranche of people who can't get past the "but why would I talk
| to them without a specific reason?" argument and then lament
| why all of their relationships end up transactional, or even
| better lament why no one will help them specifically because
| all their relationships are transactional and they aren't
| offering anything of value
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| Love this. Thank you for posting it!
| eleveriven wrote:
| Relationships really are like a garden--if you don't tend to
| them, they wither
| impendia wrote:
| I think this is tricky.
|
| I'm someone who very highly values social connections, but
| finds it a little bit awkward to just "shoot the shit". I
| really enjoy interacting with people based on shared
| experiences, of whatever type -- but as you say, many people
| really enjoy interactions which are lower-key.
|
| You're not wrong, but interacting with others on _their_
| terms rather than yours can be a bit challenging at times,
| and easy to get wrong.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| The cool thing is though that the real ones will have grace
| when either side gets it wrong, and the others won't.
| the_snooze wrote:
| >In software we have an unfortunate amount of people who
| don't value social connections at all so we end up with a
| large tranche of people who can't get past the "but why would
| I talk to them without a specific reason?" argument and then
| lament why all of their relationships end up transactional,
| or even better lament why no one will help them specifically
| because all their relationships are transactional and they
| aren't offering anything of value
|
| Yup, you get a lot of people complaining about the
| pointlessness of small talk, but the reality is that small
| talk is social glue. People want to work with people they
| like, and you only get that by having some level of casual
| ease with one another. Being 100% business all the time is
| the opposite of casual ease.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| +100 to this.
| ghaff wrote:
| Post a longtime job out of grad school via on-campus
| interview (which is a bit of an irrelevant story itself),
| every other of my (few) jobs were through a professional
| network. Nothing formal, but people I ran into and
| maintained some connection with. I know there are a lot of
| people who (at least until recently) are they just ping a
| recruiter and get offers dropped in their lap. Or who are
| deeply resentful that it seems like "who you know" is the
| modus operandi for some. But without being anything like
| deliberate or cynical about the whole thing, it worked for
| me.
| lukan wrote:
| "Yup, you get a lot of people complaining about the
| pointlessness of small talk, but the reality is that small
| talk is social glue."
|
| Only with some people. Trying to do smalltalk with me, will
| not make me your friend. I simply hate smalltalk. (Talking
| unimportant things for the sake of talking)
|
| But there are a million of other interesting non buisness
| things I am willing to talk about at length. I also like to
| joke around and be silly. But that requires a connection,
| you won't get with me while talking about the weather. And
| I know many people are like me, most just adopted to "like"
| smalltalk, as they think this is the way it has to be.
| lovich wrote:
| Small talk doesn't need to be about the weather as the
| trope goes.
|
| It can be as simple as "hey have you seen {shared
| colleague} recently?" Or "Hey man, you get into any new
| hobbies recently?", or "I've been dabbling in {x} tech,
| have you done anything like it or are could recommend an
| alternative based on {personal information you got from
| collaborating with this person}"
|
| The main point in making is that you need to continue in
| performing these relationship maintaining activities
| _before_ you need said persons help.
|
| For the extremely oblivious who haven't researched any
| game theory but know some comp sci, imagine that
| relationships with all other humans needed regular
| mechanical Turk transactions with yourself or they will
| be identified as high risk groups that shouldn't be
| afforded any leeway.
| lukan wrote:
| "The main point in making is that you need to continue in
| performing these relationship maintaining activities
| _before_ you need said persons help."
|
| Well, but I am quite good in determining if another
| person is just trying to be (fake) friendly, so they can
| get my help later and I am not interested in that and
| smalltalk won't create that bond for me. I am interested
| in genuine connections.
|
| So if someone asks this question "Hey man, you get into
| any new hobbies recently" and _is actually interested_ in
| my response - then this is simply not smalltalk anymore
| by my definition. And I gladly answer. And maybe form a
| bond. And of course help each other later.
|
| But if I feel, it is just a mechanical and calculated
| approach to bond with me, well, no thank you. But I also
| help people without doing smalltalk if I can.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| I fully agree with this.
| lovich wrote:
| > Well, but I am quite good in determining if another
| person is just trying to be (fake) friendly, so they can
| get my help later and I am not interested in that and
| smalltalk won't create that bond for me. I am interested
| in genuine connections.
|
| Can I presume that this is the burner account of some
| particular billionaire if you are that good at
| recognizing the social situations?
| Agentus wrote:
| small talk isnt pointless if done with an aim. this video
| help explains that
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw5CPtEyedU. seduction as
| applied to conversation.
|
| also rather mundane conversation can be fun if done in
| the right manner. this video talks more on the right
| manner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRG-YubP1rw
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Small talk probably doesn't even need to be "talk", a
| consider the (in/)famous example of asking for a
| cigarette lighter.
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| It might be the depression talking, but I think in truth I
| don't want to like people.
|
| I'm not playing a strong Devil's Advocate for this thread,
| my comments are explanations and not excuses - I just don't
| like people, and I would need to be convinced that
| relationships are worth having, before I cared about how to
| have them. If I wanted lots of platonic business
| relationships I would be interested in how to have them.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| If it's not too personal--why do you not want to like
| people?
| Agentus wrote:
| yeah i switched from business to software engineering, and it
| felt like an sysphean task to develop and keep relationships
| up in this new hemisphere. thought it was just me but didnt
| really have that issue with business people. in software it
| feels like the relationship halflife is accelerated. wonder
| how to get around that issue with people you literally have
| to strong arm the social stuff for them. i know doing
| computer gaming socials and having mutually overlapping
| projects can help be temporary glue but beyond that, trying
| to muster things up continues to be a struggle at least with
| a large portion of the software community. whats the secret
| to effortless networking and convincing introverts to so
| social stuff that they are repelled to doing.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| I don't know, this sounds a bit like trying to fit a square
| peg into a round hole. Why not go find extroverts instead?
| beryilma wrote:
| > because all their relationships are transactional and they
| aren't offering anything of value
|
| Why is a transactional relationship considered bad? And why
| would one consider a transactional relationship as something
| not offering value?
|
| I don't like small talk, but if I like the person I would try
| to help them anyway with their transactional request, with
| the expectation that I might have a similar transactional
| request at some point in the future. If the relationship is
| equally transactional in both directions, I don't see a
| problem with that.
| impendia wrote:
| I am an academic mathematician, and one thing I love about
| our culture is that transactional relationships are
| considered perfectly okay.
|
| I can invite a colleague at another university, whom I
| might consider an old friend even though I haven't spoken
| to them in ages -- to come give a talk in my department.
| Very often they'll agree to come; we'll roll out the red
| carpet for them, and they and I will have a wonderful time.
|
| That said, this is far from universal in academia, and many
| academics do enjoy small talk and prefer to keep in touch
| regularly.
|
| I don't think any sort of relationship can be called "bad"
| or "good" in the abstract -- but a lot of people consider
| transactional relationships "bad" in the sense that they
| don't like them. And, if you want to build relationships
| with people, often you have to do it on their terms, or at
| least try to meet them halfway.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > I can invite a colleague at another university, whom I
| might consider an old friend even though I haven't spoken
| to them in ages -- to come give a talk in my department.
| Very often they'll agree to come; we'll roll out the red
| carpet for them, and they and I will have a wonderful
| time.
|
| You're giving the person an opportunity in this case.
| You're also rolling out the red carpet to make it good
| for them.
|
| Usually when people talk about transactional
| relationships, it means they only call on you when they
| need something from you. For example, calling someone up
| every 5 years when you need a referral or you want them
| to solve a problem for you.
| lovich wrote:
| Transactional relationships are completely fine, and
| personally I prefer them in the work space.
|
| I was commenting on people who's behavior creates
| transactional relationships when they wanted something
| with a deeper interpersonal relationships, and people
| whose behavior causes transactional relationships but
| also have nothing of value to make the transaction worth
| it.
|
| If a billionaire calls me up once every five years for a
| favor but pays me a couple of million for it, I'll take
| the call any day.
|
| If someone I met at college a few times calls me up once
| every few years when they got laid off and only are
| talking to me for a reference but are never in a position
| to to help me, what reason do I have to help them other
| than a feeling of charity?
|
| I guess I'm saying you shouldn't treat others as
| impersonal machines to be manipulated unless you are ok
| with that same behavior being turned back on yourself.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| > I guess I'm saying you shouldn't treat others as
| impersonal machines to be manipulated unless you are ok
| with that same behavior being turned back on yourself.
|
| This! However if you'll allow me--I think it's worth
| saying we shouldn't treat others as impersonal machines
| to be manipulated _at all_ because we're never really
| okay with that same behavior being given back to us
| because of millenia of social, communal evolution.
| lovich wrote:
| >This! However if you'll allow me--I think it's worth
| saying we shouldn't treat others as impersonal machines
| to be manipulated _at all_ because we're never really
| okay with that same behavior being given back to us
| because of millenia of social, communal evolution.
|
| That's an argument I think I agree with but am not ready
| to defend tonight.
|
| It's much easier to defend the point that if you treat me
| solely as a resource to be exploited then you shouldn't
| be surprised if others or myself treat you solely as a
| resource to be exploited
| ghaff wrote:
| If you "like" a person, it's probably not really a
| transactional relationship. "Hi, I'm one of the 100K alumni
| who went to the same school as you did, can we do coffee?"
| is.
| beryilma wrote:
| >> "Hi, I'm one of the 100K alumni who went to the same
| school as you did, can we do coffee?" is
|
| I have absolutely gotten similar requests from students
| through my Alumni organization and have accepted them in
| the past. I don't see a problem here.
|
| Here is a direct quote from a request that I have
| accepted in the past(redacted a little): "Hi <name>, I am
| a MS in CS student at <university> graduating in spring
| '25 and I saw your profile on <university>'s alumni page.
| I'm pursuing a career in software engineering and I'm
| wondering if we can connect and chat sometime about your
| career and the culture at <company>."
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| It's only bad if one of the parties doesn't understand that
| it is transactional. When you succeed you might find that
| some people you thought you were just trading with feel
| betrayed in some way.
| Aurornis wrote:
| Because in transactional relationships the other person
| only shows up when they need something and then they
| disappear again until the next time they need something
| from you.
|
| Transactional relationships are fine if that's the deal up
| front. I have a lot of transactional relationships with
| freelancers, contractors, and repair people. I call them up
| needing something and I'm going to pay them for it. The
| transaction.
|
| I dislike transactional relationships when they're
| disguised as personal connections or friendships. People
| who pretend to want to get to know you, but they really
| just want to be able to call on you when they need
| something from you. Often when you call on them for
| something they're nowhere to be found.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| This. It's the deceit that's hurtful, not the
| transactional relationship itself.
| lovich wrote:
| You only quoted a portion of my sentence.
|
| Transactional relationships can be fine if both parties are
| on with it, but you actually need to bring something of
| value.
|
| If you and I have a fully transactional relationship, then
| why would I do anything for you if you won't/can't do
| anything for me?
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Very good point.
|
| What's the old saying _" A friend in need, is a friend,
| indeed."_?
|
| I like to have _personal_ relationships, as opposed to
| _corporate_ ones.
|
| Funny story: During the 1990s, my direct boss was a fairly low-
| key Japanese man. I really liked him. He was a marketing type,
| so we didn't really have a technical basis for our
| relationship. He was a decent chap, and I happily followed his
| orders. In return, he gave me a great deal of agency.
|
| After he returned to Japan, we'd run into each other, from time
| to time, and it was always a warm, effusive greeting.
|
| Years later, he was the Chairman of the Board of the
| corporation. I never leveraged the relationship, but my team
| was always treated well, at our level. We were a small
| technical team, and it would have been inappropriate to focus
| on us too much. I had very little ambition to go much higher up
| the corporate food chain, so all was fine. Once, he made a
| visit to our office (the US branch). It was a really big deal,
| and people were snapping to attention all over the building.
|
| He dropped by my tiny little office, to say hi. It was really
| amusing, to see the puzzled expressions on all the corporate
| bigwigs in his entourage.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| Hahaha, what a lovely story! Really shows what happens when
| we engage as _people_, not _opportunities_.
| ghaff wrote:
| This is a lot of the misunderstanding around "networking"
| you see in discussions. A lot of tech people see it as an
| unwelcome task/burden. Whereas, it should be generally
| viewed as a pleasurable opportunity to just get to know
| people who may (or may not) be useful at some point in the
| future.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| My theory is that that term has this reputation because
| it is somewhat dehumanized: you _talk_ to people, you
| _network_ with opportunities.
| Aurornis wrote:
| I think this happens because networking is always
| proposed as a way out of a bad career situation. Someone
| complains online about lack of opportunities then
| commenters come along to parrot networking as a solution.
| It sounds like a task you do for career gain.
|
| I have another theory that this creates a lot of rebound
| anger at the idea of networking. When I was doing
| mentoring (external to my company, people I didn't work
| with) I spent a depressing amount of time convincing
| young engineers that it was a bad idea to burn bridges as
| they left a company. Way too many people are enamored
| with the idea of ghosting their job or telling off their
| coworkers on the way out the door. It takes some
| convincing to get them to realize that leaving a bad
| impression on an entire office of people is the fastest
| way to poison their potential network. Nobody will want
| to refer you for future jobs if you're a jerk in your
| final days.
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| I'm not used to putting effort into friendships, so it
| does sound like an unwelcome task.
|
| And it sounds phony, since I have never put effort
| before. If I have to put effort then am I not faking it?
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand this: do you mean you don't put
| in effort, or you do but the effort doesn't _feel_ like
| work?
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I'm "on the spectrum," so human relationships are a bit
| foreign to me. I'd make a great hermit.
|
| Pretty much every relationship I have "doesn't come
| natural." I need to put conscious effort into every one.
|
| I have also been involved in an organization, for most of
| my adult life, that has been instrumental, in helping to
| force me to have relationships with others, and it has
| taught me to be a good friend, and has given me good
| friends.
|
| I'm not really into "transactional" relationships. In
| many cases, the extent of our relationship is _only_
| where we need to work with each other. I don 't need to
| be their buddy, but, in the context of our work, I have
| found that it helps me to develop a true interest in the
| other person.
|
| In my experience, I have realized that I'm actually a
| "people person." I really like people, and have found
| great utility, in ignoring my prejudices, and actually
| finding out a lot about the others in my life.
| digging wrote:
| I think the misunderstanding, in fact, is in reverse,
| demonstrated by the above comment. The networking
| required for career growth is, for many people, never
| going to pleasurable.
|
| My social circles don't have much overlap with, for
| example, startup founders. Developing personal
| relationships in my network is not likely to ever benefit
| my career growth. When people give the advice to
| "network" to enable my career growth, the people who
| would be most helpful tend not to have much in common
| with me, and building relationships with them often means
| not being true to myself, or even hiding myself.
|
| It isn't enough to simply build relationships or even be
| good at building relationships. Mostly, one needs to buy
| goodwill from those people who actually have power to
| help you.
| tuna74 wrote:
| This was a really insightful comment!
| gadders wrote:
| A similar thing happened to me recently. A chap I knew at a
| previous bank when I was an AVP and he was a VP is now on the
| board of my (very large multinational) company.
|
| When we caught up it was nice to see that he was exactly the
| same, and remembered me and said hello.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| These people are the real MVPs.
| impute wrote:
| How did you "run into each other, from time to time"?
|
| This seems to be the key part. There's research that shows
| that relationships are built via multiple, random encounters.
| Do you think he still would have dropped by your office if
| you hadn't had these run ins?
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I would go to Tokyo, once or thrice a year. Long trip. I
| don't really miss it.
|
| We'd usually run into each other at the train station, or
| in the corridors of the meeting room floor.
|
| Our meets were always quite brief and serendipitous. We
| were in very different orbits.
| jjice wrote:
| Does anyone have any practical advice to keeping up with former
| remote coworkers?
|
| My last job was remote with some fantastic people, but as time
| has passed and the company hasn't done incredibly well, people
| have scattered (including myself) and I've found it tricky to
| keep in touch. I'll video chat with some of them once every few
| months online, but I only have contact with some of them this
| way.
|
| For others, it feels like the best contact I have is LinkedIn
| messages. It's usually a quick exchange about how they've been,
| if they've been up to anything interesting, how the kids are,
| and how work is - but it's all fairly brief.
|
| Maybe that's fine? Would love to hear if others have better
| ways to keep in touch with people they enjoyed their time with,
| but no longer see on a regular basis or live anywhere near.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| What works for me is overt intentionality: I just tell them
| I'd like to continue to keep in touch with them and ask if
| it's okay if I sporadically text them somewhat regularly.
| Some folks have said outright no and that's fine, it's their
| choice, but others (most of them mentioned in my essay) have
| said yes and it's a really beautiful arrangement. Sometimes
| if they don't hear from me, they now proactively reach out.
| jjice wrote:
| That's a great point! I find that it's easy (for myself, at
| least) to gloss over the simplest and straight forward path
| for communication! It's always easier to be direct. I
| appreciate the advice!
| williamdclt wrote:
| It's a hard one. If you lived nearby, I'd say that meeting up
| for lunch or a drink is unbeatable.
|
| Maybe ask for their help or opinion on stuff you encounter?
| Whether it's technical problems, interpersonal stuff,
| personal musings about the industry... once every few months
| is probably enough, you don't have to stick to professional
| topics but that's probably a good way to start!
| JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B wrote:
| People hate LinkedIn but it's my solution. I only "follow"
| former coworkers and ask how they are doing once in a while,
| and sometimes to have lunch at noon.
|
| LinkedIn sucks unless you you restrict yourself to coworkers
| and IRL friends.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| I tend to use LinkedIn for that. It's fairly asynchronous and
| not too "in your face." I used to roll my eyes at their
| anniversary reminders, but then I realized it was a great
| opportunity to find out how someone was doing and just do a
| brief keep in touch kinda thing.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| Hey, this is actually a really good idea!
| gadders wrote:
| The other thing you can do is "Hey, I remember when we spoke
| you were interested in XX. I just found this article on it that
| I thought you might find interesting."
|
| It's a tiny favour, but it also shows you listened to the other
| person.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| Love this!
| MrMcCall wrote:
| I only skimmed it, but the framework is pretty sound, aside from
| the fact that what should be the focal point Love
| your neighbor as yourself
|
| seems to be buried at the end, so it doesn't look like he really
| takes that teaching to heart. I hope I'm wrong about this.
|
| Still, it's better than anything else I've seen on here in terms
| of group dynamics. It's a good step in right direction in this
| fraught world.
|
| ETA: And his tech skills are legit. I've been on the internet
| since before HTML, and his site is very well done. And his smile
| does not betray any negativity, so he looks like a legitimately
| good human being. I'm rarely impressed, but am with his site.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| I also hope you're wrong about this, but there's no way for me
| to know other than what my peers say
| (https://x.com/kilianvalkhof/status/1864284445584261163).
| MrMcCall wrote:
| We can know the truth of anything, most especially ourselves,
| as that truth is essential to our spiritual grown. As Rumi
| says, "The Way goes in."
|
| Just before seeing your reply, I had just edited my comment
| to add my appreciation of your site and visage. In my
| experience, a person can't fake a smile like yours. People
| dealing with physical hardship often become close with our
| Creator, and are then filled with the light of love's
| radiance.
|
| My blessing has been poverty and learning how to love God and
| others with all my heart. If that interests you, you can read
| my comment history and see if you find anything to take
| inspiration from. Or even contact me.
|
| The Greatest Command(ment) is my family's North Star.
|
| Peace be with you, and may your joy and success be
| neverending.
|
| I am at your service. We love you.
| ztlasg wrote:
| I've no idea what to take from this. Large parts sound like
| carefully planned entryism: Identify the gatekeepers, if they
| reject you, move on.
|
| The situation where the gatekeepers do let you in but their
| gatekeeping is not apparent until years later is not mentioned.
|
| Providing excellent work is not mentioned.
|
| Given the political state of software "development", the poster
| might be on to something, but it is hard to find any concrete
| advice.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| I apologize. This is good feedback for follow-up work though.
| Thank you!
| whiplash451 wrote:
| Hard disagree. I found the post inspiring and practical -- and
| have 15+ years of management in tech. Keep it up, Tejas!
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| Hey, thanks @whiplash451!
| whiplash451 wrote:
| This is one of the most inspiring and useful read I have come
| across on this topic in several years. Thanks for sharing!
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| I'm glad it was helpful!
| fredtalty5 wrote:
| Growing professional relationships is all about being genuine and
| consistent. Start by offering value, whether that's through
| helpful advice, sharing resources, or simply being supportive.
| Make an effort to stay in touch regularly, whether through social
| media, emails, or even in-person meetups. Don't be afraid to ask
| questions and show interest in others' work or experiences.
| Building trust over time and being reliable is key to turning
| these connections into strong, lasting relationships.
| mihaic wrote:
| This type of advice only works in the right environments, of
| which most countries or social groups don't seem to fall into.
|
| I do agree with most of it, but you really need to make sure
| you're the in right environments before putting in the effort.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| And sensing early when the environments are wrong and
| aborting sooner rather than later.
| njarboe wrote:
| It is nice if your profession has a yearly conference that most
| people go to. It is a place and time designated to see those
| colleagues in person and strengthen/maintain relationships.
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| I find this quite funny, I've worked with this author at a
| company and the stories of his behaviour to other coworkers there
| make my WTF collection. So to find him talking about growing
| professional relationships either means he's made massive strides
| in his behaviour or it's a lot of nonsense.
|
| This is the one I always tell people when I explain how WTF IT
| can be, I wasn't there for it, but it was retold with the author
| in the room laughing about it. A female coworker joined and on
| her first day he went up to her and said "You know you're a slut,
| right?" And there were tons of stories of him saying the craziest
| of shit.
|
| That company had serious culture problems, from a CTO who would
| take his anger out on juniors, demand complete nonsense that made
| no technical sense, and a revolving door of employees who were
| leaving because of the CTO or Tejas.
|
| Funny enough, in my personal opinion, Tejas was always well-
| meaning and rather friendly he just would say the weirdest of
| shit ever.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| Iain, nice to hear from you after all these years!
|
| I still say the weirdest shit ever, but now more in line with
| my value of honoring people above all else. I indeed, by the
| grace of God, have made massive strides in my behavior thanks
| to friends like Gabe Greenberg from G2i.co (where I worked some
| time ago) and others.
|
| I also talk about our shared company where we worked together
| and the toxic environment in this podcast:
| https://youtu.be/muS-wQP2lV4?si=XIVpuzc6TzsLUvpp&t=852 if
| you're interested to catch up a bit.
| trogdor wrote:
| Your response to Iain suggests that his account of your
| interaction with a new female colleague ("You know you're a
| slut, right?") is generally accurate.
|
| Do you really think of that as "saying the weirdest shit
| ever"? Most people I know would call it overt sexual
| harassment.
|
| I'm struggling to understand how you could have thought that
| was acceptable conduct.
|
| What am I missing?
| anthonyc wrote:
| I hate to pile on, but I listened to the podcast OP linked
| above. It doesn't make the situation sound any better. It
| is worse, actually. OP is tone deaf going on this podcast
| talking about the toxic, racist, misogynistic culture with
| seemingly no awareness of his contribution to it.
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| I think his experience of racism and "shitboy" may have
| desensitised him to the whole thing. He was there for
| years before I joined and honestly, it was meant to be
| better then and had a bunch of work on the culture but it
| was still pretty shitty.
|
| I remember once I semi-joked "You guys talk about a
| culture problem in IT, it sounds like you have a Tejas
| problem" and he generally looked like he felt bad about
| it.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| I did feel bad about it. I'm glad you said that, and I'm
| thankful for how it made me feel. It is exactly that
| feeling that continued to inspire growth and change. No
| doubt, I feel it again as people continue to pile on
| here. This is really good, because it will inspire even
| more growth, and more positive change.
| trogdor wrote:
| I have to say, I like your attitude now. At least the way
| it comes across here.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| Thanks! I'm doing my best.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| Thank you for this callout. I will re-listen, reflect,
| and grow from this. I will be better.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| I don't remember his account ever happening, but I do see a
| younger version of me doing nonsense like that. I've done
| similar nonsense if I'm being fully honest.
|
| I also would call that overt sexual harassment and it is
| totally not OK. Unfortunately, the culture of the
| organization at the time made it seem OK to where I felt
| comfortable doing such nonsense. In fact, I have done
| similar nonsense to _get approval from the coworkers there_
| when I otherwise would not have.
|
| I knew it wasn't acceptable in the grand scheme of things,
| but my team accepting and approving of it (with laughter)
| was why I did many stupid things earlier in my career.
| mung_daal wrote:
| everyone knows your game too bad it is a competition and your
| pitch is weak
| askafriend wrote:
| > A female coworker joined and on her first day he went up to
| her and said "You know you're a slut, right?"
|
| Insane behavior. I'd have to think there's an underlying
| medical/mental condition here.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| While I wouldn't put it past myself to have done something
| like that as a young fool, please do keep in mind the author
| of the comment didn't even see this happen.
|
| And yes, there are plenty medical and mental conditions there
| that I've spoken about at length, for example in https://www.
| youtube.com/live/B8e1r2L7iq8?si=pLccCEZ4nfABcs8z...
| throwaway134543 wrote:
| To clarify: you're saying the author (Tejas) himself walked up
| to a woman on her first day and called her a slut?
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| For what it's worth, I don't remember doing this but it's
| also not impossible given I was fairly foolish earlier in my
| career.
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| Nearly every professional 'relationship' I've had has been
| transient after you stop working with them, with people
| completely failing to reciprocate even after multiple attempts to
| reach out.
|
| From talking to people I know that this experience is not unique
| to me, this appears to be the norm, may be it's the industry I
| work in : software development.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| I'm sorry to hear that's your experience and hope this article
| helps that get a little better!
| askafriend wrote:
| Allow me to be crude for a second: half the people in software
| are likely autistic so I'm not surprised they struggle with
| building or maintaining relationships.
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| Yes, I did figure that out, they are idiot savants of sorts.
| chefandy wrote:
| Some of the most loyal and connected colleagues I've had have
| been autists. I have a lot in my family so there's probably
| some amount of "safe person" vibes I give off, but in my
| experience, many autists realize the value of someone they
| can feel comfortable talking to and confiding in that can
| comfortably navigate social situations and professional
| communication. Lots of "I just don't understand why they
| reacted like that-- what's your take?" kind of conversations.
| Most of these folks have been younger than me, though, so
| there could well be some other cultural factor at play: some
| way that young people are getting different
| experiences/skills/comfort levels now, or maybe their
| interaction style/strategy will change as they get older?
| mp05 wrote:
| Honest question: has the software profession not been
| democratized to the point where "neurotypical" people have
| come to overtake these jobs from those stereotypical
| "basement dwellers"? Or would you argue that being on the
| autistic spectrum provides one with abilities that their
| unaffected counterparts cannot possess?
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| It's not that I don't want my private life to seep into work,
| it's that I don't want work to seep into my private life.
|
| So I don't need friends that are also colleagues or clients. I
| already have great friends. I'm a great colleague in every way
| possible, but I never feel the need to be anything more than
| that.
|
| For most people work / life balance is already tipping towards
| work. They want it to be the other way around.
| chefandy wrote:
| When I've gotten friend from a job they stopped being
| mentally classified as a coworkers and started being
| classified as a friend I met at work. Aside from random
| bullshitting about shared experiences or whatever, I rarely
| felt compelled to discuss work with them any more than I did
| with other friends, and they can be really great at giving
| frank feedback when other coworkers might not have the guts.
| Unless there's a boss/subordinate relationship or a romantic
| connection, I've never seen or experienced any real problems
| or drama spring from workplace friendships.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| I could never talk to my colleagues with the same abandon that
| I do with my friends. They're always slightly at arms length to
| maintain decorum.
| chefandy wrote:
| I think that's probably ideal as a default approach. In my
| experience, when it moves beyond that into friendship, it's
| pretty organic rather than a conscious change in approach.
| reubenswartz wrote:
| It took me a long time to realize that conversations are the
| building blocks of relationships. Want a relationship? You need
| to have conversations.
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| Exactly. My relationships got _so much better_ after learning
| to be better at conversation.
| reubenswartz wrote:
| yes, and you don't have to keep in touch with everyone-- find
| the people you enjoy talking to, and just make a point to do
| it.
| nextworddev wrote:
| Don't try to "network". Try to "attract" instead. People are
| jaded af these days.
| pphysch wrote:
| Isn't that just relying on others to establish connection
| first?
| mung_daal wrote:
| evil people have to draw charts on how to interact with their
| minions rather than being an upstanding human being who has tried
| to read a few icelandic poems before...
| tejaskumar_ wrote:
| what are you even saying
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| If you need to read something like this, consider it a mildly bad
| sign.
|
| If you think this transactionally, it may actively hurt your
| ability to build these relationships.
|
| Simply be nice, be on time, work hard. Treat everyone, boss,
| colleague or subordinate with high degree of respect. Remember
| that they are human beings and have families, and respect that.
| Consider everyone in your company as a member of a team working
| for a common goal, and presume positive intent. Treat competitors
| and vendors with respect and act ethically. Just have good
| manners and empathy, really. This is much better because it works
| universally, not just in professional relationships.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-04 23:00 UTC)