"How to work with me" sets the wrong tone at the start, giving orders. Maybe consider, "How I'd like to work with you", or "How we can best work together" or something.
How to work with me
121–130 of 225 posts
Re: How to work with me
#122Cool, and then let's make it harassment to ignore the instructions in somebodies user manual (not just ignoring their pronoun preference), so everybody has to learn the user manual of all their colleagues by heart.
I mean, or we could not catastrophize and slippery-slope this. Given the eye-rolls and push-back just on evidence here, I don't think this idea has legs. I wonder how much of this is generational. Like "how freaking entitled are these kids now?" Publishing manuals on how to talk to them. Not saying I fully believe that, but it's the obvious "get off my lawn ya damn kids" reaction.
I support people's rights to write user manuals for themselves. The idea is even amusing to some degree. I just don't want to be forced to read them, and especially not be accused of not adhering to the rules in the manual.
And yes, I admit the word "snowflakes" popped up in my head.
Re: How to work with me
#123To me, it seems a little condescending to be told how to act toward someone. On some level it is helpful to know your teammates, but on the other hand it can come across as self centered, like you think you're special and require special instructions for interacting with. I'm sure you have good intentions in creating this, but if someone gave this to me I would instantly thing "oh man this person is going to be high…
Yeah, I got the same feeling - 4/5 of the text is worded as global imperatives, and almost nothing puts his own weaknesses and peculiarities into context. It seems like a contract required before interaction rather than a helpful guide to understanding him. That's one of the reasons I liked "Working with Claire" [1]: It is full of open subjectivity ("I hope", "I believe"), is very clear yet polite ("please ..."). [1]…
“Working with Claire” is an interesting comparison. I’ve been trying to think through why I reacted better to it than the main article.
Ultimately, “Working with Claire” seems more aimed at me, the reader / notional employee. E.g. it starts concrete, talking about meetings we’d have together. And it has helpful info about how she tends to work and the kinds of things she might do. In theory, it means I wouldn’t have to work out things like “How much info does my new manager expect?”
Self-reflection is a big part of these personal READMEs. But it’s also important to work out which bits of self-reflection are useful to the reader. For me, that’s where the main article didn’t quite hit the mark.
Re: How to work with me
#124I was thinking of doing something like that, but not in a professional context. Just a post somewhere, a way to talk about my personal quirks in a comedic self-deprecating manner. To be quite frank, the way you did it, and in the professioal context in which this is framed, no amount of revisions will make you not sound like a jerk. This might function in a non-work environment. I just don't think that's a very good…
Fair. Interesting that you think something like this could work in a non-work context, but not in a work-context. Curious: Do you have the same reaction to the one by Rands that inspired me to write mine? https://randsinrepose.com/archives/how-to-rands/
duplicating my comment because I accidentally answered to the wrong person and I can't delete the other
Most of the document you linked is about management practices, presumably written by someone in a management position. This sets the tone. The last topic is more similar to what you wrote, but it is much shorter and to the point. How to Rands is framed as a declaration of management philosophy, and, as such, sounds entirely appropriate. Yours is more personal in nature. If you are in a management position, it may be a good idea to let this transpire in your writing as well.
Re: How to work with me
#125I really appreciate posts like this when I'm hiring, as it alerts me early on that someone expects the team and company to conform to their standards. That may work great for some organizations, but not ours.
Re: How to work with me
#126Aside from the reflexive “yikes, dude” that this gives me, I wouldn’t trust the content itself. A manual written by someone who’s worked with you for years would be far more valuable. But my first impression of a person who hands me something like this is going to be “what past interpersonal disasters have you wrought that led you to put time into something like this?” …case in point is a current coworker of mine, wh…
Did you give him this kind of feedback after some time passed and thing crystalized? It may be unpleasant to hear since it ruins his self-image, but as person who actually made the effort and tried to put together some, even if flawed, self-manual... he may appreciate the honesty/bravery on your side and content, at least in long run.
Re: How to work with me
#127Can anyone here give me an honest review of the doc I send people who reach out to me who I don't know? I definitely want to know if this doc comes off as condescending. https://vinay.notion.site/If-you-want-to-work-with-me-at-Loo...
To be honest (as you asked for), it does come off as egotistical and a bit condescending. I would remove the "Thank you and sorry" and "The bar is high because my word carries weight" sections. The tone of sentences like "I'm insanely lucky to be where I am today", and "My word carries weight" is a bit self-aggrandizing.
Without those sections I think the rest is fine. If you want to introduce the whole thing to explain why it's necessary I would entirely leave yourself out of it because it comes off as self aggrandizing. I would just write something like, "I appreciate your interest in working at Loom. I can't simply pass your resume on if you contact me, because it isn't fair to my hiring manager. It makes it easier for everyone when I provide the below information up front because its saves us both time".
Re: How to work with me
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the document you linked is about management practices, presumably written by someone in a management position. This sets the tone. The last topic is more similar to what you wrote, but it is much shorter and to the point. How to Rands is framed as a declaration of management philosophy, and, as such, sounds entirely appropriate. Yours is more personal in nature. If you are in a management position, it may be…
I think you replied to the wrong comment.
Oops.Thanks.
Re: How to work with me
#129It seems kinda one sided:
> People prefer different channels of communication, often depending on context. Don’t communicate in the way that’s most convenient to you. Always consider whom you’re communicating with and what their needs and context might be.
Sure, but my needs should be somewhere in the equation too. If we are peers, it is reasonable to expect them to be as important as yours.
> I try to truly understand a position before arguing against it. Ask questions. Repeat back what I understood to be their point.
Does not leave space for you accepting someone elses position. Also, if primary reason you ask me questions is so that you can argue against, then it does not sound like symmetric cooperative debate seeking solution. Instead, it sounds like debate club where one needs to win by creating gotchas.
Again, I am back to one sided. There are a lot of expectations for other person to understand and tolerate your peculiarities. But little about you trying to actually understand them.
Re: How to work with me
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "My expectations when we work together" looks like it's copied directly from a HR boilerplate example somewhere. It sounds nice but I wouldn't know how to action any of that. Also if you are my peer, you setting expectations like that is inappropriate.
I'd rather work with someone who's honest about how they operate than with someone who uses action as a verb.
I believe it's probably a typo. My guess is "act on" was intended.