>Good luck if you ever have a boss or a colleague who prefers rapport and empathetic communication over the more direct, rational style you prefer. You are going to continually wonder why that boss expects you to read their mind.
That hit home for me. I once got called down to HR to find my boss there. I discovered at that moment that she was frustrated with how long it was taking me to do my job. Part of my job is pulling data for mailings out of our database. We have ~1 million constituents, and regularly send mailings with tens of thousands of recipients. She had performed that role before me, and she felt that it could be done much more quickly that I was performing it.
Turns out, I could perform the task as quickly as she expected, but I had totally misunderstood a conversation we had months earlier. Word had gotten to my boss that a person had called in because of a factual error on a piece of mail we had sent them. She came by my desk and asked me about the error, as I had specifically said the file was 99.5% error free. I mentioned that the incorrect information had been put in the database by someone else, and the error rate was about what I had expected. She told me that she wanted 99.9% error free mailings from then on.
Later on, I sent her data for another mailing. She came by my desk and asked if the data was 100% correct. I said I was confident it was 99.9% correct. She said we couldn't have any errors this time, and we needed to make sure that the data was 100% correct. I told her that it was fundamentally impossible to be 100% sure the data was correct. She said that she understood, but she wanted it 99.99% correct, as we couldn't mail constituents information that was wrong. I said it would probably take 10x longer to run the data, but I could do that if she wanted it. She did, so I proceeded to make sure the data was 99.99% correct.
She was absolutely flabbergasted when I brought these conversations up. To her, she thought 100% confidence meant "pretty damn sure" and 99% confidence was somewhere around "It's probably right, maybe." From my perspective, 99.5% correct meant we'd have 5 or fewer bad rows for every 1000 rows in the data.
It was so weird for both of us, because we both thought we had been incredibly clear with the other person. I thought I had been very clear with my point -- I had spoken with her about how long it would take to ensure the data was 99.99% correct several times, because I was concerned about the delay. She had thought she was being emphatic, ad I was just being a pain in the ass. The thing is, that I'm generally not particularly hung up on the difference between literal meaning and figurative meaning, and she generally pretty clear when expressing what she wanted in technical conversations without hyperbole. So she hadn't even considered that I was interpreting her comments literally, and I hadn't considered that she was being hyperbolic.
It was definitely a huge learning experience for both of us. We had both been really stressed for months because we failed to communicate effectively with one another, despite both of us recognizing the same problem and trying to bring it to the other person's attention.
> i thought one of his tech decisions was bad (and in reality it was politically motivated to force people out.)
Let’s say you were right: It was a bad technical decision and it was politically motivated. What outcome can you expect from arguing with him on technical grounds? He knows what you’re saying is right, but he already knew that before making the decision. What you need to do is convince him not to act in bad faith. Try to figure out how to do that, and acknowledge if it’s not feasible.
Not to call you out in particular, but I see this as a common mistake by people arriving in a big company. Things are not as you wish, everything is too complicated, motivations are subtle and usually hidden. The trick is to get past frustration that reality does not match your mental model. (People aren’t being honest! How can I even work with people who don’t tell the truth!?) Abandon your mental model, acknowledge reality for what it is, choose goals that are achievable, choose actions that make progress toward your goals.
> Middle management is often desperately trying to justify their job by creating purposeful confusion. I swear he's trying to trip me up looking for reasons to put marks on my record.
Could be, esp. now you've called him out on something and he didn't own up to it.
My advice is to do this kind of thing in person. It's emotional - you calling someone out, and the other person accepting the mistake or not - and should be conveyed face to face. Email is a terrible medium for emotion.
>The problem is oftentimes not the individual being insubordinate. Oftentimes the issue is that Roles and Responsibilities are not clearly defined.
This is entirely possible too. I just had an experience where I unwittingly cut the technical lead of my team out of an important conversation simply because I didn't realize he would care. I wanted to limit the scope of the conversation because of time constraints.
I told him to his face in a meeting that I was trying to limit the scope of the conversation. He was not very happy about that.
Needless to say, once I realized what a butthead I had been, I apologized profusely, explained that I had misunderstood the situation, and promised not to let that ever happen again. It ended up being fine after that, but boy did I feel dumb.
Point is, don't just assume that new hires will automatically infer what everyone's role is.
> My professional experience has taught me that proactive empathy can be more harmful to a work environment than a simple combination of humility and compassion.
This is beautifully put.
> There's nothing more obnoxious than a coworker without a clue, or to-which you're indifferent trying to 'understand you'. Especially if they're tremendously off-base.
I had a colleague try to do this with me, and it led to a couple of the shittiest weeks ever of my career (so far). My self esteem and perception of my own morals were absolutely shattered until I got a better handle on what was really going on.
> Solving your problems is your problem. Not mine.
No, solving the company's problems is both our problems. You have a tremendously adversarial attitude toward your coworkers. Why don't you trust them to know the cost of interrupting you and decide whether or not it's a net gain?
> No, solving the company's problems is both our problems.
Yes, this requires effective collaboration.
> You have a tremendously adversarial attitude toward your coworkers.
I do not have an adversarial attitude toward my coworkers. In fact I am very well liked by the people I work with. Probably because I treat them with respect.
> Why don't you trust them to know the cost of interrupting you and decide whether or not it's a net gain?
How can they possibly know this? That would require everyone on the team having complete knowledge of what everyone else is doing at all times. Further, if you believe you know more than your coworker about their situation then it speaks to a distrust of their abilities.
I had a coworker like this. Not only would he not get anything done but at standup he would say clear BS to our manager who seemed to not understand it was BS. The BS was the thing that really got under my skin. Because his BS seemed to pass the test with the manager but was such elementary BS to the other engineers.
Finally one day I flipped out and called him out directly and wrote a long lengthy email to the managers. In my head I thought maybe this is what high performance teams do, like Apple and Microsoft, and I needed to step up.
I lost the job, and I still have regret three years later.
And it was my fault. Getting angry was very dumb.
I don't know what the right move is, but I had to create this account to urge you not to do what I did. I picked that battle and it was a mistake.
Let me add, in his defense, he was nice and didn't get in the way, and I had no idea what was going on in his situation. For all I know he went on to be a star employee (I have no idea). I screwed up.
> When we had meetings he would unprompted send out lists of everything we had discussed, along with links and useful information.
This has been a practice of mine for a long time now. A boss of mine once told me “the guy taking notes will never have any sway in the conversation, you’re handicapping yourself”, and I said something like “the guy taking notes actually knows what’s going on, though”. He wasn’t very receptive at first, but it stuck, and he actually began to use me as a reference to know what was going on.
I love talking to people and keeping tabs on what’s up. Teams tend to be awful at it, but it’s no specific person’s fault. Making a point of doing it is like a relatively inexpensive super power. You can help your coworkers a lot, and you rarely end up doing unnecessary work. That’s one of my favourite parts I think; I really can’t stand wasting my or other people’s time.
I think my boss was wrong, too. When you’ve got a good grasp on what’s going on, you’re in a far better position to weigh in after initial conversations. I’d prefer to hear people out and only interject if I see obvious issues with their ideas. Otherwise I’ll just listen.
> You absolutely need a space to talk candidly with your manager.
It's not so easy when you feel like you can't trust the people to whom you report. I'm in this situation after attempting to be candid about what I felt were missteps on the part of my manager and a director of engineering. After a scolding from one of them, and a veiled threat about my employment ending, I now feel like I just shouldn't rock the boat. I mostly dread my 1:1s with them, and I don't feel like those meetings are time well spent.
I could maybe understand if I had offered unsolicited feedback, but they asked for my opinion and I gave it honestly.
> How do you know that you just didn't communicate your issues well to the person?
When you encounter that person, you'll know. Some people just aren't capable of grocking certain things.
I had a guy on my team like this. He just wasn't getting it. At first, I would spend extra time with him, communicating the issue from every possible angle. He would almost always end up producing something so far off base. Everyone else on the team was sync'd but he just never got it.
The best part is that he refused to believe that he was incompetent. I say "best", because that gave me an easy way to get him to move on without firing him. I knew if I wrote him up one time, his pride would kick in, and he would start looking for another job. The plan worked perfectly.
> If you're a manager, how do you tell if your team is spending 50% of the time slacking vs. working on a problem that is twice as difficult as everyone thought?
I... talk to them? Ask them questions? Probe to see if they're running into issues? Offer help, support, possible solutions, or just be their rubber duck?
If I sense there might be issues, I probe into the team, solicit anonymous feedback, and otherwise discretely ask for other people's perspectives.
Is it a perfect science? No. Can you get fleeced by staff for a while? Absolutely. But the low performers eventually reveal themselves if you're paying any attention. And the reality is the vast majority of people genuinely want to do a good job. So my preference is to trust my staff to be honest and hard working, recognizing the rare possibility that I could end up the victim of a sociopath who deliberately tries to abuse that trust.
> People talk shit about office politics, but sometimes you need to read the room...
In my limited experience, most people have a kinda low self awareness, especially in the lower end of the food chain, the higher I go in the chain, the less naive people I meet. Why was he even worrying about a badly planned project? If your job is to code, just do that unless you are getting pay to be worried about the planning, which would be even a higher salary and at most have a very low key conversation about the problems with the superior of your manager, so when he gets fire for performing badly you can have more odds of getting his job.
> Also, your boss has a hard time fighting for a raise for you every year because his boss just says 'oh that guy just fixes bugs, no growth'"
You've spent a lot of time in senior roles, huh? Then you ought to know how valuable someone who can fix bugs, especially arcane ones, can be.
> I am kidding
No you weren't, you just don't want to be perceived as an asshole. This is one of the most basic and overused psychological tactics in history. Just say what you have to say and let the chips fall where they may. If you're wrong and the other person has a spine, they'll tell you you're wrong. If you're right and you're actually dealing with adults, they'll recognize it and accept it.
>> When I was dealing with a micromanager I just stopped letting him know what I was actually doing - because bothering to communicate with him only ever made my job harder than it needed to be.
Man, this. I was dealing with the same shit and just did what you did.
I stopped to show what I was doing in a low level, because he is a super technical guy and would try to find issues in things that don't matter and/or were not high priority.
And then I started to show and discuss only what matters. My mental health had a 100% improvement.
> Hey, man. I'm only reading what you wrote and responding to the impression it left. Please try to take it constructively.
> Imagine your boss was actually happy with you not delivering anything those first few weeks. Would he have let you go?
If you were a boss, at what day would you expect from your newly hired developer to start delivering any result?
> I've watched this exact situation play out too many times now to miss the signs. A new person joins the team, spends a few weeks familiarizing and reporting as much in the standups. Manager is encouraging the whole time. Then one day, New Person is no longer with the company, reach out to me if anybody has any concerns.
...and you consider this a healthy behavior from any working environment?
What do you think employees are, mentalists to read people's minds and know what others they are thinking?! Let's be serious here please...
> Every time, it's the new person not catching the signals that they should have been self starting and delivering all that time.
Oh how much I abhor this behavior! What is it with "not catching the signals" even mean here?!
If you don't like someone's behavior, let that person know and be crystal clear about the reasons; 99.9% of all times it's either bad communication or misinterpretation, let alone a naive misunderstanding.
> I'm not trying to say that it's fair. Just pointing out that it happens.
Indeed it does and this needs to change and needs to change yesteryear!
The person giving the feedback was the boss's boss, and they clearly didn't have the entire picture of the situation.
That's not gaslighting. The term "gaslighting" gets thrown around far too readily. Assuming malice and manipulation in cases of miscommunication is a quick way to sour any relationship, this one included.
There's no question that communication wasn't great in this scenario, but I don't see any reason to believe it's malicious or manipulative. The OP needs to work on proactive communication, but receiving unfiltered feedback from above is much better than blindly continuing down the same path without ever being informed that something is wrong.
Learn from it, adapt, and move on. Don't assume it's "gaslighting" or manipulation every time two people have different perspectives on a situation due to miscommunication.
>It is, in general, a career limiting move to tell anyone above you that what they're asking you to do is stupid.
My experience? unless you have like a bottom quintile boss, you can tell him/her almost anything, if you do it verbally, with the door closed.
I mean, in most cases, yeah, I'm technically more skilled than the boss... and the boss knows it, that's why I was hired. The fact that the boss hires people who are more technically skilled than they are means that the boss is good at their job.
Now, of course, there might be other issues related to the business or to other systems that I don't know about... the boss might not take my advice, but only a terrible boss won't listen to the advice of a technical individual contributor that they hired.
the places where I've seen people get in trouble for arguing with the boss is when they do it angrily and publicly, and when they don't get over it after the boss explains why it has to be another way.
>This behavior is not competent, or smart if you ask me
One job I had, my manager decided early on that I was a complete idiot and insubordinate. Freely asking any "dumb" question that came to my mind was a no-no, and even more so was asking other people to verify what my manager told me - it was seen as undermining their authority.
A later job, my manager formed the opinion that I was really smart in the beginning, and so when I fail to understand something, they blame themselves for not being able to explain. Sometimes I feel bad they are so self-critical.
"Fish can't teach you about water"
Even if people are not consciously intending it, though, being bad at knowledge transfer is in everybody's self interest. Perfect communication would facilitate workers being interchangeable cogs.
> project confidence even if I know what I'm saying is BS
One of my very worst bosses had this quality. Perversely, it was about the only thing I admired about him.
The guy could walk into a meeting of NASA flight engineers and engage in conversation without uttering a single fact that would betray his total lack of any knowledge/qualifications.
n.b. He was fired not long after I left the company.
That hit home for me. I once got called down to HR to find my boss there. I discovered at that moment that she was frustrated with how long it was taking me to do my job. Part of my job is pulling data for mailings out of our database. We have ~1 million constituents, and regularly send mailings with tens of thousands of recipients. She had performed that role before me, and she felt that it could be done much more quickly that I was performing it.
Turns out, I could perform the task as quickly as she expected, but I had totally misunderstood a conversation we had months earlier. Word had gotten to my boss that a person had called in because of a factual error on a piece of mail we had sent them. She came by my desk and asked me about the error, as I had specifically said the file was 99.5% error free. I mentioned that the incorrect information had been put in the database by someone else, and the error rate was about what I had expected. She told me that she wanted 99.9% error free mailings from then on.
Later on, I sent her data for another mailing. She came by my desk and asked if the data was 100% correct. I said I was confident it was 99.9% correct. She said we couldn't have any errors this time, and we needed to make sure that the data was 100% correct. I told her that it was fundamentally impossible to be 100% sure the data was correct. She said that she understood, but she wanted it 99.99% correct, as we couldn't mail constituents information that was wrong. I said it would probably take 10x longer to run the data, but I could do that if she wanted it. She did, so I proceeded to make sure the data was 99.99% correct.
She was absolutely flabbergasted when I brought these conversations up. To her, she thought 100% confidence meant "pretty damn sure" and 99% confidence was somewhere around "It's probably right, maybe." From my perspective, 99.5% correct meant we'd have 5 or fewer bad rows for every 1000 rows in the data.
It was so weird for both of us, because we both thought we had been incredibly clear with the other person. I thought I had been very clear with my point -- I had spoken with her about how long it would take to ensure the data was 99.99% correct several times, because I was concerned about the delay. She had thought she was being emphatic, ad I was just being a pain in the ass. The thing is, that I'm generally not particularly hung up on the difference between literal meaning and figurative meaning, and she generally pretty clear when expressing what she wanted in technical conversations without hyperbole. So she hadn't even considered that I was interpreting her comments literally, and I hadn't considered that she was being hyperbolic.
It was definitely a huge learning experience for both of us. We had both been really stressed for months because we failed to communicate effectively with one another, despite both of us recognizing the same problem and trying to bring it to the other person's attention.
reply