[bsuvc]

To 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 maintenance"

[uniqueuid]

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]: http://growth.eladgil.com/book/the-role-of-the-ceo/insights-...

[teekert]

Exactly, it would be more valuable if the manual said things like:

"I can come across as a dick sometimes but that is because I like to test certain stances on issues by vigorously defending them, I assure you I'm open to changing my mind if you just keep pushing, actually I feel like you are taking my intelligence more serious if you do. Not many people appreciate this, but somehow discussion makes me feel good" or

"I actually can get pretty pissed if I feel that you are insulting my intelligence (which I'm sometimes overly sensitive to), it is where I seem to get my sense of self worth from. I may over-argue my point of view then later realize you were right and apologize." or

"I act all cool and hipster but I'm actually constantly stressed when I travel and it makes me make poor choices and not pay attention to important things like 'Did I take my pass from the ATM 15 min ago?'." or

"I'm very shitty at keeping context in mind and often jump on the wrong details in a conversation, please have some patience." or

"I really really cannot agree to disagree, it keeps nagging at me, I want to talk it out until someone "wins". Yeah I've been called a dick for that." or

"I get stuck where there is no obvious best choice in just about any situation because I cannot make a choice based on gut feeling (it feels like weakness), I need logic and it makes me swing back and forth on questions like 'subway or Uber?', really annoying when you travel with me." or

"I do appreciate jokes that are slightly inappropriate, and I feel like often at work I have to self-censor."

"I'm 40 but I like 9gag and memes."

[jfengel]

Or you could just sum it all up as "I'm deeply unpleasant, and I'd say that I'm sorry that you have to work with me, but I actually don't have any interest in your emotional state."

[teekert]

:) Well, there is a kernel of truth in all of them, but I think my colleagues are quite fond of me nonetheless. I think that I have my analytical mind to thank for that more than my innate capacity for detecting and dealing with emotions in others though (never mind my own).

[sdoering]

Wow. Thanks. Need to bookmark this. You seem to know me.

[ellen364]

“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.

[bavila]

Without even reading any content, I feel there's a marked distinction just in the titles alone.

"Working with Claire" signals: This is an article about what it's like to work with me.

"How to work with me" signals: This is a set of rules I expect to be followed if we are to get along.

I am just immediately rubbed the wrong way by the latter, while I'd be willing to approach the former with an open mind.

[closewith]

Agreed - this is the most egocentric approach I've come across for dealing with colleagues. I'd love to know what his co-workers think of him.

[microtherion]

I did not get that impression from the text at all — I wonder whether it was revised or whether it is because I am Swiss myself so maybe it fits within MY norms.

In particular, I did not get the impression that the text makes any demands from co-workers that the author would not mutually grant them himself.

Can you point out specific examples of language you found self centered or high maintenance?

[davidbauer]

I slightly revised it based on feedback from this thread here.

[bsuvc]

https://web.archive.org/web/20220329121626/https://www.david...

[willcipriano]

The corporate language is a turn off. If we are dealing with human problems, the sterile corporate speak isn't going to get us to a solution.

[n_time]

I think it's actually [Euro English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_English)

[davidbauer]

Can you point to specific examples? This is very much a living document, always looking for ways to improve it.

[jacquesm]

Try to bring it down to 10 lines or less. Your presumption to the attention and memorization of this document is way over the top. If you feel like you have to communicate something like this in writing you could at least be charitable and pare it down to the absolute minimum.

Other than that: the whole thing comes across as hopelessly naive with respect to how humans interact, it misses the fact that people that dislike each other on a personal level may be forced to work with one another and it misses the 'office politics' angle.

If I was assigned to a team to work with you and you handed me this document I would in turn hand in my resignation with reference to your document and that would be that, any organization that tolerates this kind of bs is not one that I would want to work for.

[TheOtherHobbes]

It's impersonal, sterile, generic (what does a corporate word like "excellence" actually mean in practice?), and simultaneously intrusive and lacking in empathy for readers.

What you have written is actually a list of demands.

Not likes. Not tendencies. Not polite requests. Not values you hope to share with others by meeting them half way, possibly clumsily but with good faith.

Demands.

There is no social context in which a document like this is appropriate.

[willcipriano]

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.

[PlugTunin]

<It sounds nice but I wouldn't know how to action any of that.>

I'd rather work with someone who's honest about how they operate than with someone who uses action as a verb.

[criddell]

I believe it's probably a typo. My guess is "act on" was intended.

[zerocrates]

Saying "action," purposely, as a verb like that is somewhat common. It's business-speak much like "leverage" as a verb, though that one's become so common as to go unnoticed.

[davidbauer]

Thanks!

[keithnz]

change the whole thing to be about you, almost a trouble shooting manual, not some idealised world of of your interpersonal interactions. Pretty much tell people what your personality is like, what you are trying to improve, and possible problems people might have with you

[davidbauer]

Points taken. Will try to work on a second version that will keep in mind how this came across to you (and others in this thread).

[dessant]

I've skimmed your post, and I honestly feel like the content is not the main issue here, but the fact that it was written and published. You could share how you prefer to interact with people if the need arises, preferably by addressing them directly about the points that are relevant for your interactions, and without giving them the impression that you've handed in a list of preferences.

[davidbauer]

That's a good point, yes. I didn't intend to publish it first, but put it out there to learn from the feedback I'm getting. It's interesting how differently people who don't know me (see this entire discussion here) react compared to people who know me or have worked with me before. That's super helpful since future co-workers will most likely fall in the first group.

[closewith]

It's also possible the reactions you get from the second group are muted because they naturally don't want to offend you.

[mike_d]

Whatever you do, please leave it up. Documents like this are extremely valuable red flags for future coworkers.

[JabavuAdams]

Yes! The fact that someone would write a doc like this for their own introspection and growth - great! The fact that you would publish it or supply it as a prelude to interaction - weeeird. But again, I've made similar gaffes. Will probably make more.

[etrautmann]

I had this reaction to the title, but reading the piece after I found it to be general points for all interactions among people rather than particular instructions for interacting with you (which I agree would be off-putting).

[uniqueuid]

Thanks! By the way, it might help people if the frame of reference was clear.

Did you write this for your managing role at NZZ? Or as a freelancer? Or ...?

[xelxebar]

@davidbauer Ugh. These commenters stress me out. In fact, there's potentially an argument that filtering out such personalities actually helps cultivate a good/healthy environment for you personally.

To my eyes the comments read like pattern matches on low-level grammar and lexical choice. RFCs are even more egregious users of imperative language, but I don't see many people getting their jimmies ruffled about that, so I wonder what kind of social background and circumstances could make simple grammar features feel like a strong signal of character to people.

As a point of contrast, if discussion brought up things like the following, I would instead feel eminent warmness and inclusiveness:

- There is not a social norm encouraging people to write "Me Manuals", so what factors might bring such an idea to salience?

- Cultivating such a document and sharing with people exposes a lot of vulnerability. What does this act itself communicate? (Cooperative intent? Perfectionist tendencies? Bravery? Narcissism?)

- How would a document like this parse out under various different cultural and corporate norms?

- What are the failure modes of trying to communicate nuances of human cooperation through low-bandwidth channels of explicit delineation?

- Engaging witch such a document also engages our Kahneman System 1 cognition strongly. What can we glean about our individual biases by the snap-judgements and intuitions we feel reading the article?

- Are there historical or anthropological analogies we can draw to a "Me Manual" practice that could shed light on how such it may operate?

Et cetera. Personally, the author's article pushes my priors about him/her in the direction of earnest, open, optimistic, defaulting to cooperation vs competition, and perhaps having perfectionist tendencies. My base-rate estimate for this personality is semi-low, but the article feels like a pretty strong signal, so overall, I would feel cautiously hopeful about working with the author.

[kjs3]

I agree. I showed it to a couple of teammates and the universal opinion was that if someone handed us something this pedantic, we'd be making sure to minimize any interaction with or reliance on this person. Especially reliance on...I can only see an endless variety of "you didn't read my required document and interact with me strictly in my self-approved manner, therefore I feel entitled to ignore you/condescend to you some more/report you to HR/ruin your day (or whatever negative I deem appropriate)". Life is too short.

[MisterTea]

> 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 maintenance"

Sounds like a lot like on-line dating profiles.

[Dracophoenix]

To play devil's advocate, the concept is only as condescending as a resumé or nutrition label is. To an extent, this is already done when introducing oneself and (at least in my collegiate experience) one's pronouns and triggers. Perhaps your feelings reflect your personal criteria for unnecessary information rather than anything objectively condescending?

Now speaking for myself, I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I would certainly like an efficient and upfront method to assess a person's capabilities and mental state without having to waste time with pleasantries or wade through a social mine field. The more information the better.

On the other hand, it's likely that this personal resumé of sorts will be another layer of buzzwords and prattle to muck through as composing one evolves from a discovery process to a status competition.

Let's stick to business cards, shall we?

[jacquesm]

You can drop the 'a little'.