[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.