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.
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.
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.
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 :)
I mean maybe if you aren't in the USA but based on the intense political divide there the vitriolic teams cannot stand one another. I would never risk work stability over anything other than a direct work related topic.
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.
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.
That's not the lesson anybody took from the Holocaust or the civil rights, anti-domestic violence, anti-sexual assault, and anti-police brutality campaigns of the last few decades.
> [Bystanders] included those, for example, who did not speak out when they witnessed the persecution of individuals targeted simply because they were Jewish, or during the phase of mass murder, did not offer shelter to Jews seeking hiding places.
The Jews hold Fraulein Jeanine personally responsible for not speaking out against genocide when it was committed against them, and for not aiding in the concealment and escape of refugees. It's fair.
SIV was part of MLK's agenda in the 60s.
In the 90s, neighboring Jeanines were supposed to look out for abused women and children who couldn't advocate for themselves.
Then in the 2000s, it's once again the Jeanines of the world who were supposed to say something if they saw something.
The Jeanines were marching for BLM in the 2020s.
Policing has fallen out of fashion so now Jeanines are deputized in mandatory DEI "ally" programs at work.
First of all there's no unified voice of the Jews. And, even if there's some voice that says that bystanders are responsible, the question immediately presents itself, to what degree?
A guard shot in the direction of my grandma when she stopped at the railway station. She stopped because she heard people begging for water from the wagons.
What she could have done? And this is also very relevant for judging, let's say, Biden, or every head of state in general. People demanding action are usually completely ignorant of the actual agency of the targets of their screed. (And if they are in fact aware, then they are just demanding empty gestures, which is probably even worse, as it just makes more people mad.)
In general the biggest bang for the buck is voting.
Speaking up on Twitter is somewhere at the end of the list. Who knows where's speaking up when someone tells a joke with a punchline that is based some xenophobic/racist/bigoted stereotype. (Not to mention the complexity that comes from context, comes from the fun in safe transgressions against truly shared values, and so on.)
Of course there's an upside and downside to affirmative actions. Corporate mandated DEI bullshit is ... no surprise bullshit (eg. mandatory DEI training for everyone for no reason, just makes people fed up with the whole thing), but giving on the job training opportunities to disadvantaged people is not bullshit. (Plus also not without downsides and implementation challenges.)
> A guard shot in the direction of my grandma when she stopped at the railway station. She stopped because she heard people begging for water from the wagons. [...] What she could have done?
Nothing! The expectation is not that she succeeds, only that she tries. She tried, was shot at, and couldn't complete the task. That's not on her. The ask was that she try.
The most anybody can ever do is act when and where it is safe to do so, and remain alive enough to help as often as possible. Resistance and terrorism use the same playbook.
> Speaking up on Twitter is somewhere at the end of the list.
You say that, and it's true, but you miss the big picture. If it doesn't matter, so much effort wouldn't be expended on cancelling and censoring everybody who speaks out against Israel. Why does Israel give so much of a shit what people are saying?
(Answer: even if it changes nothing, it influences public perception. Capturing hearts and minds is usually necessary for a successful campaign.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
I once was hired as a type of consultant for an internal matter. The company had a lot of in-house developed software from various internal departments situated in different countries.
A whole bunch of representatives traveled to a single location focusing on one such important application. We had 10 local versions of it. Plan is to get rid of all of them and align on what should go into a single new one that was to be built.
The sessions were a total disaster. A tragedy of the commons situation where each representative did not cooperate or align, instead they all tried to "win" each and every little detail. Frustration grew, there was shouting, petty revenge behavior, toddler-like silence (I refuse to further speak), people simply leaving, and even people crying from stress.
In the debrief with the session leader, she was still traumatized. She watched me dutifully make notes and then asked: how do you do this?
During the sessions, which lasted 2 days, I was at perfect peace amidst a bunch of screaming pseudo-adults. Completely unbothered. I'm not talking about controlling my frustration, I had none at all.
Because I don't care. It's a super power. Which obviously needs to be applied responsibly.
I used to have a lot of trouble when trying to not care about stuff. I didn't care about most stuff, but it used to be impossible to not care about stuff I was naturally interested in.
Now after almost three years raising a toddler I can see clearly when people are behaving like babies. And I'm used to handle a stressed baby who is not cooperating for God knows why. It happens quite frequently and I just play along. I got used to being there, offering support without any expectations (because he usually doesn't want any at that point), trying things out just to give him a chance to take the bait, etc. Now it just feels like life is finally making sense to me. I catch myself applying this to my relationship with my wife, to my work, etc. I feel like I would probably not make these realizations nor develop this mindset if it wasn't for my kid.
I don't have kids, but I can totally understand how that would increase one's tolerance for chaos.
I think I "don't care" because I'm very analytical. Already at a very young age did I realize that this world doesn't make much sense in that it's not very logical, consistent or fair. It's more like a game to play.
So you develop a kind of "humans going to human" attitude where you detach from drama. Or at least pick your battles.
Point is to control emotion (negative side at least) and get stuff done. Perform like a "professional killer" who kills problems (I remember there is a manga with this topic).
There are always too many people losing their control of themselves (or don't have enough from the beginning). If possible, help them. If not, help yourself and don't bother.
We are entities with limits. Spending time on things we cannot/will not do is a waste (I value my will almost as important as my capability, we are humans not slaves/machines).
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
>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.
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.
I think one of my greatest professional gifts, especially since getting into tech, has been that I'm naturally personable and can get along well with pretty much anyone. It doesn't have to - and usually doesn't - get into personal stuff. I'm just sorta jokey and lighthearted while still getting my shit done. It has only been a benefit to me, personally and professionally.
I can't see how making people more comfortable talking to and collaborating with you could really be a negative, but everyone has different priorities I suppose.
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.
> 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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
> 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!
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.
And if you liked to hate Robert Carlyle as Doctor Nicholas Rush in Stargate Universe, you'll love to hate him as Rumplestiltskin / Mr. Gold / Weaver in Once Upon a Time!
...Did you know Battlestar Galactica was based on the Book of Mormon?
I also love Dark Star! But it is time for Sgt. Pinback to feed the alien.
Due to unfortunate confusions by the cosmos and misunderstandings by the search engines at the outset of the internet era, he had to make a trans-steller switch to Star Gazer!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
If you can will it into success, break off and start your own. Have a convo with your cofounder that you aren't meshing well together and you won't be able to go the long haul in the current setup - make it easy and you might even be able to divvy up parts of the market while you see if you were right. It sounds like you're going to be unhappy if it fails and also unhappy if it succeeds so change something.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When I refer to growth, I don't mean in terms of the company, or profits, or business success. I mean in terms of your relationship with your colleague.
Most things in life are about relationship management. Without it, the overall endeavour fails.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
This isn't helpful if you're already in that situation, but I would never be a cofounder in a venture where all the cofounders didn't have the same stake.
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.
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.
Just be a person, real person that listens to them, agrees when they make sense, but also point out contractual obligations, ramifications of leaving, never threats, just calm discussion. I was at E.A. when 3D0 flopped, and learned a lot about handling stress.
>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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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."
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.
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:
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.
One year ago during an online meeting, a coworker from another team compromised with our client on a set date for a solution. The deadline is reached a week later, and no updates are available on the progress.
I engage my colleague with an initial friendly tone via Teams, full of my characteristic smiley emojis. My messages are seen, however ignored.
Several hours later, I notice that my colleague is joining a non-priority, non-mandatory meeting. I send a new message, stating that I am aware of his presence on the meeting. I beg for any feedback, as by now my inbox has 2 frustrated emails from our client. My words are conveying desperation, as I only intend to obtain any significant status update.
My colleague replies that his agenda is none of my business, then proceeds to report my "invasive" approach to my manager.
Our client got understandably upset, as we missed the deadline. We later lost the contract that month.
I still do not go along with this coworker, as earlier this month we have had another disagreement, which, I am afraid, has only worsened the relationship, maybe up to an unsalvageable state.
This article does not seem to have suitable advice for my scenario, as I have no interest in working with unresponsive and irresponsible individuals. I do wish the article could provide more insights on how to deal with lack of ownership as well.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :-)
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.
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A fact of life is that nobody is going to be liked by everybody. That's just not how people work. Trying to ensure everyone likes you is a bit like trying to ensure that the weather is great every day.
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.
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.
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.
I have a formula for emails that I follow because most people don't really read past the first sentence.
The very first sentence of any work email I send is the action I want them to perform -- the sentence that most people would put at the end. I also write the subject line so it functions as a todo bullet point for them.
The next paragraph is a summary of why I need them to do whatever it is that I am asking them to do.
The rest of the email is the details.
The last paragraph of the email restates the first.
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 ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> if the other side is in "I win, you lose" mode, none of these coping strategies really work.
If I'm dealing with a person like that, and the thing they want to "win" isn't something important for work, then I just let them "win". It's no skin off my nose. Let them have their meaningless victory.
If it is something important for work, then I just make the best factual case I can to whoever matters and roll with the results.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
parents are even more susceptible to doing that. They spent the first 20 years of your life doing that after all.
>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.
sure. Doesnt mean men who are listening don't try. Or interject with their own rant instead. Those tend to be the two most common responses.
>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.
I'm more of the "dang, that sucks" kind of person personally. So I guess I'm the ideal subject for that. Not because I'm not listening, I just genuinely have nothing else to say in response. I don't like ranting much IRL period (work, family, friends).
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.
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.
> 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.
>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.
Hmm, on the contrary, I've encountered a bunch of really nice (and not just nice, but generally awesome) people who were very mediocre at the core of their jobs. Usually these are not in technical, software dev roles, but in areas like product management and marketing.
And I don't think this is just my bias, but as much as people love to crap on leetcode-style engineering interviews, they do ensure an objective bar of programming ability: I have never seen someone do great at programming problem interviews who then struggled to program on the job (but they certainly may have had other issues). But the interviews I've sat in on for roles like product management and marketing had less of an objective bar, so it was generally easier for someone with a great personality to get hired in those roles.
>but as much as people love to crap on leetcode-style engineering interviews, they do ensure an objective bar of programming ability
sure, but the further past junior you go, the less programming ability really matters to your day to day job. There's stuff I'm doing on a technical level now that I woulda done just fine 7 years ago in college, but lacking the ability to properly integrate it into a proper PR, communicate with systems/product owners on requirements, iterate on based on customer feedback, and overall maintain with other legacy code in mind. That's gained from experience working on a large codebase, not by hacking away at your ability to find the longest palindrome substring on a whiteboard.
It's inevitable to ask those questions to a junior who lacks work experience, but it's really annoying that I have to study trivia like that some 7+ years into industry. Or that some companies are so paranoid about me answering their trivia quiz offline that they want to compromise my machine's privacy to check on me siting at my computer in thought. I'm gonna be googling documentation on the job anyway, so at least ask me about concepts if you need to probe.
>But the interviews I've sat in on for roles like product management and marketing had less of an objective bar, so it was generally easier for someone with a great personality to get hired in those roles.
I agree, it's hard to gauge those skills, harder to build those skills without having a job first (catch 22) and nearly impossible to assess in any technical test. These are parts of business that can fail even if you do nothing wrong on a technical level, and since society is so blame-first, we never truly assess how much of that is on the market, the individual, or the product.
I do agree it's nice to have something more objective for a technical role. I just think it's a shame that I'm still being asked to implement atoi for a graphics programmer interview. What does that have to do my ability to send data to a GPU?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
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).
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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 Švejk is practically required reading for getting the right kind of attitude.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
I didn't yell at anyone who didn't yell at me first, I merely gave as good as I got. My manager didn't want to know about this sort of minor stuff, you don't go crying to them with every small thing they just get annoyed. They already know that these people are problematic, I wasn't the first person to have these problems.
In every other job I did not have this experience. Everyone was fine and polite and did their jobs, and so was I. The above job was in a merchant bank in London and very high pressure, yet people were slack and useless. I just called them out on their behavior. I was never reprimanded for any of my behaviour. My manager's manager invited me to return when I left (I had to leave due to an illness in my family) because of my work.
Some workplaces are just dysfunctional, like this one, the fact that the head of department was sacked gives you an idea. I was one of the few people who stood up to this culture and plowed through and fixed things. I sorted out several system breaking bugs while I was there, that has festered for years.
>My manager didn't want to know about this sort of minor stuff, you don't go crying to them with every small thing they just get annoyed
in my eyes, cool. Its their job to be annoyed and solve the people issues. If they don't want to do their job, why should I do it for them? They are probably paid more than me precisely to solve the annoying problems.
That's just my view of things. I've tried to be loyal and put the best intentions of the company first and everytime they lay me off without a second thought. I'm not on nor am interested in management track so I'm not going to "rise up to the occasion" and do more communication and leadership than I'm expected to. I was never rewarded for trying to fix dysfunctional behavior so I don't see the benefit for me.
But hey, if it worked out for you that's good. We all have different experiences. You mentioning London implies you probably have the exact opposite problem with terminating employees than I do (in the US), so I can start to see your POV on the issue.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
>The real question is: Why do things have to reach the point of harassment before action is taken?
Blurry lines are hard, but harassment has very clear lines. I imagine that's the reason. At the same time, people don't want to be narks and report every little infraction. Being annoying doesn't necessarily mean you deserve to lose your job, but that's where the blurry lines come up, yet again.
>If you're in that sort of org, don't stay there. It will be a magnet for such folks.
It's not always easy to change teams nor jobs, sadly. And people need the money. Lot of things you wouldn't put up with if you had "fuck you" money. But very few do, fewer so in this economy.
> 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.
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.
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.
Sounds like you're inflexible and slow down process. Which can be a good thing, but it really depends on the studio.
I've tried to do this in the games industry and I just end up being called "slow". Because games have historically been "break fast, ship buggy". There's not a lot of value in a well-architectures codebase here. It's getting better due to some high profile buggy disasters, but change is slow.
> 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.
Most peope don't want to hear long reasonings unless they are the ones directly solving the problem. There's no point making an articulate proposal if the readers skim and pass on feedback I already addressed.
I imagine it's the same for many ambitious juniors. They get dismissed and they change their language as they adapt to the industry. Things aren't as eglitarian as the marketing shows, and those who see the sausage being made adapt.
I don't know. It sounds like you either had some very quality work history to come to these conclusions, you had the funds/connections to found/co-found work where you shape the culture, or you have an extremely strong sense of duty. I'm proud of my experiences, but I can't say I relate, and I'm already broken. No point correcting corporate, better to suck off their funds and prepare to be my own boss.
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.
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.
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.