How to work with me - a no BS approach

http://nullisnull.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-to-work-with-me.html

by beagledude • 15 years ago

181 121 15 years ago

nullisnull.blogspot.com

sedev• 15 years ago

That seems like a risky flow of rules - but mostly in that they look difficult to consistently adhere to. Someone who could consistently play by those rules would be interesting to work with.

The list also, though, makes an underlying claim of "I am good enough at what I do that I can play by these rules, which are atypical of American workplace culture." If that claim is not a valid one, this list would probably indicate someone deeply problematic to work with.

alanfalcon• 15 years ago

Given that the list was presented here "with a lot of respect and admiration for the author" I get the impression that this is simply someone who is indeed interesting to work with and validly good enough to play by those rules.

I had a boss's boss that was like a mini version of this at a menial job quite some time ago - I didn't enjoy working with him, but we got shit done quickly and efficiently, and the meetings were at least painlessly short. I vastly prefer this to working with incompetent people, and because my boss's boss was the way he was there were very few incompetent people around me in positions of any authority.

hugh35• 15 years ago

I don't care how good you are, how good you think you are, or how lucky you think I am to be working with you, the tone of this "list of rules" comes across as rude, and being rude to your underlings just isn't a good way to get them to work effectively (at least not in most cases).

The actual suggestions are pretty reasonable, though. As a fun exercise, you could rewrite this list so it sounds helpful and polite rather than rude and egotistical.

I've been around academia for long enough to have met a lot of really first-rate minds who are polite and humble, and a lot of second-rate minds who are rude and arrogant. And maybe I've met some first-rate minds who are rude and arrogant as well, but I haven't noticed because I've mentally sorted them into the "overcompensating second-rater" category.

tl;dr: Don't be a cunt.

dctoedt4• 15 years ago

I also like these rules, a lot. I've had bosses who used similar rules; they seemed to work pretty well.

The tone doesn't bother me. I've been a boss, too, and sometimes you really do have to get people's attention with a 2x4---especially when dealing with young whippersnapper subordinates who have a high opinion of their own capabilities [I should know; I used to be one of those].

loungin• 15 years ago

How would you go about setting one of those young whippersnappers in their place?

I honestly think I am beginning to become one at my current job and need a reality check. I am also curious to hear wisdom from someone who has been through it. :)

chunkyslink• 15 years ago

I don't interpret these as rude and I quite like the tone. You know exactly where you stand and how to act - leaving the little time you have to do the job well. No messing around and no feeling your way into a relationship. I'm printing this out for my wall.

The world of academia is not under the same pressures as the business world where there are a completely different set of forces at work. I'm not sure thats a great comparison.

peteretep• 15 years ago

> [I personally think that] the tone of this "list of rules" comes across as rude

> I've been around academia for long enough

I wonder if these two things are linked. I'd love to receive a list like this from someone I'm meant to be interacting with - it shows me they're serious about the work rather than serious about egos.

redthrowaway• 15 years ago

>And maybe I've met some first-rate minds who are rude and arrogant as well, but I haven't noticed because I've mentally sorted them into the "overcompensating second-rater" category.

Dijkstra seemed to fall into the category of very smart pricks, although he may be the exception that proves the rule.

borkt2• 15 years ago

Most of these rules should go without saying and were instilled in me through jobs growing up and strengthened through college. I think the author wrote this for people who did not learn this yet in life, not because the author thinks they are the only one with these workplace values.

muratmutlu• 15 years ago

+1 Couldn't have said it better.

I get the point of being focused but if anyone handed me this before a bigwig meeting I'd lose all respect and think they were arseholes straight off.

"7. Stand during micro-meetings."

Fuck off!

nrb• 15 years ago

Number 7 is a great enforcement of 6. Standing for less than 5 minutes shouldn't be a problem for anyone without a medical issue, which would surely not fall under this "rule"

ChuckMcM• 15 years ago

Different people are different. Its not particularly profound. What is useful about this list, is that it establishes some boundaries in a working relationship. Establishing those boundaries are essential.

If you are an employee it is less stressful to know very clearly what your supervisor expects, and even if they are an asshole, knowing the kind of asshole is a good thing vs trying to discover it by bumping into various traps.

Larry Bossidy's book on execution [1] has some good discussion about how clear roles, and clear communication structures, are critical to getting things done in a timely way. When you are struggling to keep three or four different potential solutions to your current problem straight, if your peers are doing the same, its impractical to think your manager will be jugging the n x m set of potentials. Rather they are balancing the relationship of what everyone in their group is working on against things being delivered and things needed in peer groups.

This 17 rule missive in the blog posting reads like someone externalizing their tools for maximizing the important signals out of all the possible signals they are getting input on. I don't think it sounds 'rude' I think it sounds 'blunt.' The difference for me being that rude implies negative judgment and blunt implies negative tact.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/dp/0609610570/

JVerstry• 15 years ago

Funny, this list is about putting ego's aside and organizing work in an efficient way. Yet, your make it about your perception of it and start categorizing people. You don't get the purpose. It does not seem like you have a lot of working experience. It is really not about YOU. I would not want to work with you.

laughinghan4• 15 years ago

Putting egos aside and putting perceptions aside are two very different things.

Do you agree that working with a person who is competent and nice is better than working with someone who is competent and rude? Which do you want to be seen as?

ErrantX4• 15 years ago

> tl;dr: Don't be a cunt.

This is interesting. Because my initial though was; "who is this guy, and how the fuck do I go work for him?".

I liked this; simple and clear rules that attempt to force "underlings" (who are obviously historically supposed to ass-kiss) to think critically, force time with the boss, advocate their experience, stand their ground - and so on.

Perhaps this was couched in a fairly direct tone; but then I suppose that is what I like :) Others I can understand wanting it presented in a different way.

But this is definitely the attitude to give your employees.

I love my job, and my boss is awesome. And I can advocate my ideas sometimes. But I often feel bad speaking up - for example his advertising prose is not very good at all, and I have been trying to tell him that politely for the last year (still not got the hint, and this is why having a boss as a friend is a bad move!). But I can't change it when he gives it to me to put on the site... (edit; and, uh, the point I am making here is that as awesome a boss he is, he doesn't give me the feeling I can go to that level of criticism)

I'd love to think that when I become a "boss" I'd be able to have this sort of attitude - the sort that says "yes I make decisions, but if you think I am being an idiot, and can express why then sodding well tell me :)". But I suspect many bosses think like that, and most don't manage it. Fingers crossed huh?

beagledude2• 15 years ago

agreed! Being direct = generally efficient

joe_the_user2• 15 years ago

I'd love to work for someone like this if ... they lived up to their side of the implicit bargain.

I have had bosses who made demands of this sort but were stunningly, despicably unworthy of them.

I wonder what exactly is the breakdown between "demand exactness but doesn't provide it" and "demand exactness and does..."?

j_baker5• 15 years ago

Perhaps this was couched in a fairly direct tone; but then I suppose that is what I like

I like directness too. But this is also the oldest excuse in the book to cover up being an asshole. "Don't like how I call you a fucking moron? I'm just being direct. Quit being so sensitive!"

martinkallstrom• 15 years ago

That's interesting, my initial thought was; "who is this guy, and how the fuck do I get to the position (s)he's in?".

For the rest of it, my reaction was the same as yours. Simple rules simply rules.

Shenglong• 15 years ago

you could rewrite this list so it sounds helpful and polite rather than rude and egotistical

That's contradictory to what the article is emphasizing. When you're dealing with your own team, openness is essential, and efficiency should not be traded for politeness.

As an employee, I would hope my boss wants results more than my thank-yous. As a boss, I would hope my employees care more about results than thanking me. If you spend all your time making something politically correct, you spend no time getting things done. To me, this article isn't rude: it's to the point, and if my boss gave me this list, I'd smile and jump in excitement.

chaz• 15 years ago

Like many things, it depends on the delivery. If I received this as an email, a handout, or a lecture, my reaction would definitely be, "WTF?" But many terrific people I've worked with prefer to work this way and they're pleasant to be around. These are things you might have to learn as you work with them.

raldi3• 15 years ago

> As a fun exercise, you could rewrite this list so it sounds helpful and polite rather than rude and egotistical.

Okay:

-----

Hi! I bet you're super nervous about meeting me, but please don't be -- I'm just a big dork. And don't take it personally if I'm terse or appear impatient with you. 99% of my time is spent in meetings, so it's extremely helpful if we both skip straight to the point .. or "cut the bullshit", as my grandmother used to say. Here are some other tips:

If you have bad news, please just come right out and tell me immediately. I promise I won't blame the messenger, and I might even know a quick fix. If we have a regularly-scheduled meeting, don't wait for it; interrupt me with time-critical issues. Also, don't be afraid to ask questions or disagree with me; I promise I won't get upset. If, post-meeting, you find yourself regretting not having spoken up or asked a question, come right back and correct that problem. I'm a big follower of the philosophy that there are no stupid questions.

I've found note-taking to be extremely fruitful. Please bring a pen and paper anytime you meet with me; it impresses the heck out of me when someone catches everything the first time and I don't have to repeat myself.

If you have an appointment with me, and I'm in another meeting, go right ahead and interrupt it. Your time is important, too. But be prepared for someone to do this if our meeting runs late.

Often, there's only about five minutes of real content in a meeting. If so, there's no need to stretch it out. I appreciate such micro-meetings. You can foster them by identifying in advance what decision needs to be made and sending it around in advance. And don't be surprised if I make everyone stand.

I don't really like long emails. Instead, consider a micro-meeting, and set an agenda if it's a complicated issue. Then stick to that agenda!

Micro-update emails are great, though. I've found them to be effective for confirming commitments and mutual understanding. This is especially true after a meeting: It's super-helpful to get a (brief!) list of your agreed-upon commitment echoed back to me. I don't always respond to such messages, but I read every one. Oh, and to save time, please skip the greetings, "thank you"s, etc. (You'd be surprised how much time this saves on my phone's "message preview" screen.)

Finally, a few quickies:

* Instead of "It's being worked on", tell me when you expect it will be done. That's what I really want to know.

* List all the options, and tell me which you recommend. This is especially important if you come to me with a problem -- but if you don't have a solution yet, skip this step rather than delaying the news.

* Economic analyses are the best supporting arguments. (I insist on them when money is involved.)

* Don't worry about making reports for me, but if you do, check out the spreadsheets I've made and try to copy their design.

* Don't send me long documents. (Yes, I realize the irony.)

-----

You might think all the "please"s and other friendly words make my version too fluffy, but it's actually about 500 words shorter than the original.

joshfraser• 15 years ago

Nice job. I like the rewrite 100 times better. I could actually see myself using something like this, but wouldn't consider the original.

rexreed2• 15 years ago

This is great!

puredemo• 15 years ago

This is actually much better. More appealing on practically every level.

alex_c2• 15 years ago

Do we really need to soften everything? Are our egos so fragile that we can't take a little bluntness - as long as it's genuine and well-intentioned?

I find your version to be much, much weaker than the original. In many parts, the motivation of the writer is so obfuscated as to make the list little more than a vague and friendly pep talk.

Note taking - friendly productivity tip, or career-defining moment?

Interrupting a meeting the boss is in - does he really want me to do that, or was he just trying to sound friendly and approachable?

I think the biggest difference is that the original expects excellence, and implies penalties for not living up to it - while your rewritten version expects mediocrity, and implies rewards for rising above.

To each his own - I prefer the original, I find your version to be more patronizing, and somewhat hypocritical in claiming to "cut the bullshit". Many others will prefer your version. I guess the real trick is coming up with a version that will make everyone happy, while keeping the impact of the original.

MicahWedemeyer2• 15 years ago

Truly excellent. Well done.

wisty2• 15 years ago

Your version is nice. You missed a point. The original sets the tone. The tone is blunt and to the point. The boss wants everyone to speak like that.

Conditional clauses are harder to parse. Sentence fragments are easy. Write like a Neandathal, people will read every word.

Instructions are simple. Anyone can guess the context. Explaining context forces readers to visualize, detracting from the message.

Your one is nicer. People won't every word. That's the point.

Now, I would never advise doing this if you didn't have the authority to do so. And it would pay to be extra-super-nice when you weren't in a "decision making" meeting, so people didn't think you were an evil robot. But the rule list does drive in some important points in a very effective way.

eurohacker• 15 years ago

is it so necessary to be so polite and nice - considering its not a kindergarden we are running here,

fractallyte• 15 years ago

Aside: while you highlight the ego/arrogance of this individual, the last line of your comment - in an orthogonal sense - highlights subtle sexism in language (and hence [cough] thought...?).

cf: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunt

jamesaguilar• 15 years ago

According to the article, you must be a "weakling" since you don't like his tone.

r00fus• 15 years ago

I really like the gist of the "rules" presented here.

I don't think the tone is useful. You can be efficient, strict and no-bullshit without being an asshole (think: Spock).

For example, rule #3: Bring pen and paper to every meeting with me. Pay attention to what I say; I'll try to speak with care. If I frequently must repeat instructions, or remind you of something I've already told you, you will not work with me again.

...could easily be rewritten to be as effective and less authoritarian.

danilocampos2• 15 years ago

I'm not so sure. It sounds like this person is articulating a deal breaker. It's not unfair or unreasonable to have deal breakers in relationships. Better to know in advance, right?

hugh35• 15 years ago

Again, it's all in how you phrase 'em.

Example: I wouldn't date a girl who was vegetarian, who smoked, or who didn't shave her armpits. And that's fine. But if I gave my girlfriend a printed list which says:

RULES FOR DATING ME

1. Do not smoke

2. Eat meat at least three times a week

3. Keep your armpits free of hair

...

then she would rightly think that I was a complete asshole.

ratsbane• 15 years ago

Better to know in advance, sure, but he's saying if someone forgets to bring a paper or pen to a meeting that he might be unwilling to work with that person in the future. Knowing these terms in advance, I think I'd decline to work with him.

"...or remind you of something I've already told you, you will not work with me again"

datadon• 15 years ago

If you can bear to get to the bottom of this list, there is a gem waiting for you:

"Don't sent me long documents. I like precision and concision. Say it on one page (or less)."

pacaro• 15 years ago

I agree with some, disagree with others, but for me this is critical, I see a lot of documents, many of which are bloated with irrelevant material to try and deliberately make them seem weightier than they are...

For example a technical design document that reasonably contained less than a page of technical information plus a couple of useful diagrams padded out to 10 pages with user requirements that had been cut and paste from the original requirements document.

The design may or may not have been good, but teasing it out from within vaguely familiar material wasn't worth the effort for most readers, so it gets ignored, the dev thinking they have consensus starts implementing and is suprised by the ensuing shit-storm.

An email or post-it with a single paragraph or bulleted list of "here's what I'm going to do" would have been more effective

troels3• 15 years ago

You missed the joke. He's spending 17 points to say that you should be concise. That's ironic.

ryandvm• 15 years ago

Meh. My wager is that anyone that gives lists like these to their employees is less brilliant and more of an asshole then they realize.

jusob• 15 years ago

"Don't tell me there's a problem without offering a solution." I disagree. While I try to think about solutions before bringing up the problem, sometimes I cannot find the solution on my own. It can be a good idea to talk about the problem to other people. Collectively, we might find a solutions.

ulisesroche• 15 years ago

I hate this list. It takes too long to get its point across(17 points), all the micromanagement will slow everything down, and point 2 and 15 are contradictory.

I worked under someone like this as an intern, and though I never "got in trouble", that's probably because I was scared and needed the money. I left as soon as I could and so did most of the team.

dredmorbius3• 15 years ago

There are two items on that list that would raise hackles with me: email, and repeating.

I'd also hold the boss to their claims of openness and consistency. There are a number of promises made in that document which had damned well better be held to, or this is a recipe for disaster.

Email is very effective. If used effectively. There are reasons large collaborative online projects communicate primarily through email. It's good for surfacing issues, and particularly for keeping a record of what was said (in some businesses, this can be a liability, and there's a lot of aversion to it).

The problems arise when: - Nobody owns a conclusion. Discussions can be interminable. If a conclusion is reached, it needs to be noted. If not you end up with the online interminable debate -- there's no judge on Usenet/Slashdot/HN to end the debate.

- Conventional enterprise email tools hinder discussion. There's a reason "geek style" quoting, trimming, and threaded mail agents are used. GMail gets close. MS Outlook, Lotus Notes, and the like, are horrendous.

- I've had more than one boss who was convinced of their own brilliance, but who was in fact very vague and very inconsistent. Nailing down requirements/expectations, or communicating bad news was at best problematic. In the context of an expectations list such as this, that won't work.

On repeating things.

Every boss I've had, from Mom on down, has had to repeat things, and often hasn't liked it.

Deal with it.

Management means managing. If you're repeating yourself (often and for most of your subordinates), there's a problem with your communication style, your expectations, change control, task/project tracking, or some mix of the above.

People work on a basis of repeated social encounters. There are messages which are so repetitive that we paste them on labels, placards, loop them in rail/airport/bus system announcements, etc. And that's the simple stuff. If you're a manager, you'd best get used to that too, and find ways of dealing with this that 1) minimize the requirement and 2) allow you to be repetitive without driving yourself nuts or dulling the message.

Brevity. It works for simple use cases. Complex ideas require a more nuanced exposition.

Otherwise -- yes, there are a few good points in there.

joe_the_user2• 15 years ago

There are a number of promises made in that document which had damned well better be held to, or this is a recipe for disaster.

Yes, but spelling out the promises clearly is at least a step towards making sure they are followed.

calibraxis• 15 years ago

Yes — about repeating, I am extemely scrupulous about making sure notes are taken. Actually, I often go far beyond notes, when appropriate. I may not have an eidetic memory, but I+computer does.

But people who say they hate repeating themselves annoy me greatly. They often repeat mistakes, which is a far worse problem. As you point out, they scapegoat others for constantly needing to repeat themselves.

troels3• 15 years ago

Oh, thank you. I was wondering about the email thing myself. I generally prefer to have complex discussions over email, because I find the medium much more concise and with the added benefit of a written account of what was/was not agreed upon.

Face-to-face meetings are good for brain storming and being creative, but for decision making, I prefer email.

dredmorbius3• 15 years ago

Email can be a hazard when you're in the fast-and-furious discussion phase.

Then it's useful to have a F2F meeting (or conference, or whatever), with someone designated to take notes and post a summary. If there are conclusions drawn in the meeting -- and the meeting should be specifically scoped to do:

1. Reach a conclusion, or 2. Identify what additional information is required to accomplish 1, or 3. Determine that the problem is intractable

.. then those conclusions must be nailed down in writing immediately after. Bury your hatchets and grudges and get stuff done.

IgorPartola• 15 years ago

Whorver wrote this sounds like an asshole. Working for him/her sounds like a chore. Handing out shit like this is an insult to your "minions". Calling people for whom you you are supposed to be a leader "minions" is also an insult. I don't care if you are a Balmer or Jobs; this is a dick move.

geoffc• 15 years ago

Pretentious. The points that particularly irk me are:

#1 - Duh, everyone does.

#3 - Why do you assume I need pen and paper to keep track of what is going on.

#5 - Why am I responsible for your lack of time management skills.

#8 - The async nature of email threads works well for a lot of complex topics.

#17 - The definition of irony.

Edit: My HN posts like this one usually get a quick down one negative vote and then climb out of the hole from there. It all started after I posted this comment http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1331769. Could whoever has me on their bozo filter lighten up. Thanks.

ChristianMarks2• 15 years ago

Pretentious is the word. +1.

skorgu3• 15 years ago

> #1 - Duh, everyone does.

IME this isn't even remotely close to true. This applies to at best 10% of people in an average corporate environment (which is the context I assumed for the document).

acangiano• 15 years ago

The rules would seem less harsh if posed as recommendations, nevertheless there is lots of good advice in there.

> Don't sent me long documents. I like precision

I'm certain that the irony of this finale and typo will not escape this readership.

chollida1• 15 years ago

Well I guess as long as he always spells it that way he is being precise, just not that accurate:)

jasonmoo2• 15 years ago

I've worked with this guy. He's actually one of the most tolerant and respectful people I've met. The fact that he's incited a flamewar is actually pretty funny.

You should spend some time reading his code. You will learn something.

hugh35• 15 years ago

Well, if he really is a nice guy and seems like an asshole in the list, then that's an even bigger reason to think that the list is bad.

You should send him this thread. Oh wait, he doesn't like email. You should have a micro-meeting with him in which you tell him the URL to this thread. Be sure to remain standing.

jasonmoo2• 15 years ago

u mad bro?

beagledude2• 15 years ago

moo, not sure this is about who you think it is, brito was just blogging about an old boss he had. He told me about this letter and I asked him to type it up so we could read it.

jp_sc• 15 years ago

It says the poster is not the author of the list. Are you talking of @darkgoyle or the original author?

JoshTriplett2• 15 years ago

I agree with most of these points, disagree strongly with others, and think this list could shrink by half with no loss of meaning, but above all I'd still rather see something like this documented rather than assumed. Too often a community has a set of unwritten rules which they will expect new members to follow, and short of lurking for a long time you can't learn those rules; even then you won't learn them all, and you'll (hopefully) get informed when you screw them up. I'd rather see documentation.

(I also think that the authoritarian tone people attribute to this document comes from the context; if you read it as a list of rules for sane interaction with any professional rather than with a particular individual, it seems quite reasonable. Granted, it didn't start out that way, but that seems like the spirit intended by reposting it.)

hugh35• 15 years ago

if you read it as a list of rules for sane interaction with any professional rather than with a particular individual, it seems quite reasonable

But there's some stuff here that's specific to this individual. He doesn't like email. Some folks do.

Honestly, I really do think it's a good idea to give your underlings some kind of guide to how you prefer to work. It's just also important to do it without being rude.

JoshTriplett2• 15 years ago

Yeah, I had the bit about email in mind when saying "disagree strongly with others".

mattdeboard• 15 years ago

To be completely honest, I like this quite a lot. I would much rather deal with someone I know is firm, fair and decisive than a dithering worry-wort who tries to tiptoe around everyone's various emotional states.

It's words on a piece of paper. This guy is very clearly laying out a list of guidelines for subordinates in a way that leaves absolutely no room for second-guessing. You guys getting insulted by this, I'm not sure what to say.

achilds55• 15 years ago

These are very good.

borkt: > Most of these rules should go without saying and were instilled in me through jobs growing up and strengthened through college.

I agree strongly with borkt - these are common-sense professional behaviors, usually picked up over time. Fresh grads will do well to consider incorporating these behaviors on entering the workforce.

Whether it makes you a jerk for handing it out to subordinates (IMO it does) seems beside the point. The list itself is valuable as reinforcement for efficient behavior in the office.

aculver• 15 years ago

If this resonates with you, you may enjoy reading http://randsinrepose.com/ and http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Humans-Humorous-Software-Engi... .

datn• 15 years ago

This person is a jerk.

quadyeast• 15 years ago

2 and 15 seem to contradict each other.

dredmorbius3• 15 years ago

Good point. #15 is also implying subordinates manage (make decisions). While it's helpful to give/get recommendations, the subordinate may not have the full context of a problem. Which has shades again (see my remarks above on repeating) of a manager who doesn't want to manage.

shabble• 15 years ago

The style reminds me a little of http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/08/tiger-oil-memos.html

Although, as many others have already said, the rules themselves are fairly sensible, but the way in which they're presented is a little heavy-handed (even for a 'No BS Approach!')

walexander• 15 years ago

Maybe this is not being received well because of the startup audience here. Coming from the corporate environment, I see some excellent points.

In a big company there are simply far too many people scrambling to be heard, and a middle manager really doesn't have time to hear all of them. Getting tied up in unnecessary meetings is a huge drain on everyone. Most meetings consist of 2-3 people who just like arguing and 10 others having their time wasted.

So, sure, the list is not perfect, but I wish everyone at my company had a copy of it.

borkt2• 15 years ago

Exactly, and the information that the manager is asking for is what will save your ass when the company is deciding which project is going to get the axe. If you play by these rules and properly prepare for the meetings you can be confident that the manager you are working for has all of the data he needs to defend the project, which is much more than I can say for places I have worked.

cdcarter• 15 years ago

"If you must prepare reports for me, review spreadsheets I've created. Copy the style and format."

This is so incredibly important. Not only is it great to have a unified reporting look on a team, this promotes comprehension. If you present me a spreadsheet that looks like how I make a spreadsheet, I'll understand it very quickly. Likewise, if you start making spreadsheets that look like mine, you'll understand mine better.

j_baker5• 15 years ago

If a boss of mine gave me a set of rules like this, I would quit immediately. It sounds like something a narcissist would write.

The rules themselves aren't necessarily bad. I agree with the majority of them. Nor is this list necessarily rude. In fact, if you pay attention to it, the wording is actually pretty polite.

The giant, waving red flag here is the underlying sense of entitlement. Notice that each rule is of the form "Don't do this, I like that." Of course, the thing that's being left out of all of this is how the person who's reading it works. I don't care if you're the boss. You can't expect efficient teamwork without taking the team's desires into account.

skorgu3• 15 years ago

I suspect the boss in this situation consider you quitting a net positive if your style of interaction is so dissimilar to his/hers.

j_baker5• 15 years ago

"Style of interaction"? I bet Jeffrey Skilling had a "dissimilar style of interaction" with Enron's accountants. Hitler seemed to have had a "dissimilar style of interaction" with the Jews.

Believe it or not, sometimes people in authority are irredeemable assholes and you have no option but to escape. If it makes their lives easier too, so much the better.

ChristianMarks2• 15 years ago

In every case where I have worked with someone who enumerates a list of rules like this, I have observed:

1) that the author believes he is being highly original; 2) the rules are enforced unilaterally, and adhered to by the author at best grudgingly if at all; and, 3) whenever a superior tells you, "I'm an X person," for whatever X you like (people, no-nonsense, pure as the driven snow, bullshit-free-zone) you can rest assured that the opposite is the case.

wglb• 15 years ago

I am reminded of the "egoless programming" movement of, oh, I can't even remember how long ago. What I have always wondered is why there is no such thing as "egoless management". I see by the attitude expressed here that the author would not subscribe to this plan either.

I have been a manager in other lifetimes and have had some serious A players on the team. This tone and the expectations listed here might work for B players or C players, but no A player I know would sit still for this for a moment.

cHalgan• 15 years ago

I scanned and noticed some common newbie mistakes... I wish the life is so simple :(

  I don't like email, particularly for discussing 
  complex topics

Dijkstra is rolling in the grave... If you cannot write down your thoughts about some complex topic, waving hands in the meeting will not make it more clear. I guarantee.

  Don't tell me there's a problem without offering a solution.

Good luck with that. The result will be: look we have no problems. Sometimes (actually more often than you think) problems don't have solution at all and the best way is to cut the loses.

  Don't send me long documents. I like precision and
  concision. Say it on one page (or less).

Simplification: if you are a knowledge worker sometimes very long elaborated documents are very much required.

  Bring pen and paper to every meeting with me. 
  Pay attention to  what I say; I'll try to speak with care. 
  If I frequently must repeat instructions, or 
  remind you o something I've already told you, you 
  will not work with me again.

Effective managers say things twice using multiple communication channels: http://hbr.org/2011/05/defend-your-research-effective-manage...

  If you have a meeting with me at an assigned time, and
  I am in another meeting with my door closed, interrupt me.

You know, you should get some kind of calendar or watch... That is how people rise to the top ....

  If you disagree with me, voice your differences.

That is fine but don't push that responsibility to your reports. I was lucky to be once on a meeting with our CEO (big corporation - CEO is very very rich guy). And he would go around table and ask everybody (including me) what they think and to voice disagreement.

hasenj• 15 years ago

How to work with me:

- Don't boss me around.

Thank you very much.

rexreed2• 15 years ago

This person sounds like a real pleasure to work with. Efficient? Sure. Human? I doubt it. No wonder people like this seek more solace in computers than people. I have just one rule: don't work with assholes. I guess that rules out this "expert".

al-king• 15 years ago

Point 3 is poorly thought out. Speaking carefully includes emphasising important points. Think of communication the same way Don Norman thinks about design.

15 is iffy. I'd prefer to know about a problem even if someone has no idea how to fix it, whether through lack of experience or creativity. If he's meaning to say "people who work with me must be this talented", just come out and say it.

The rest are by and large sensible and to the point. I particularly like avoiding e-mails, because it's not intuitive, but it can work well: e-mail seems like it has an importance hump and 'stupid questions' might not be raised, and simultaneously it's harder to tell how people feel about things. Might work differently for you, though.

schiptsov• 15 years ago

Show us your accomplishments (your code) first.. ^_^

cwbrandsma• 15 years ago

I would LOVE to work for someone like this. This is how I communicate, and it is how I like to be communicated to.

Side note: I've spent a bit of time looking at personality profiles (Meyers-Briggs (sp?)), you will see this as the favored communication style for many introverts (I'm an INTP). Others would see this as very stand arrogant. Personally, I always hate talking with HR because of all the bullshit thrown around and refusing to get to the point.

enko2• 15 years ago

I find the polarised reaction to this list almost more interesting than the list itself. As for me, I was in complete agreement with basically all of it. I didn't find it rude, in fact rather the opposite - I appreciate the consideration for our shared time and the pledges to fairness and efficiency.

I wonder about the work experience of some of the most vocal offendees. Maybe as you get older, and hear that clock ticking louder and louder, you come to appreciate brutal efficiency a little more. Yeah, the guy's blunt, but at least he's not going to waste your time. Would that I could say the same for every leader I've had to work with.

And for those obsessing over the "copy my document style" etc - that's a rule you can break if you know how to break it, ie you know you can do better. If you've seen, however, some of the shocking creations inexperienced people can come up with using excel - well, that rule's for them, not you.

And the reason he says he "likes" things is because he doesn't want to argue about it. That's his preference, do it. When you go to a restaurant and order a steak, do you bring out the chef and tell him "give it to me well done, because that's the best way of cooking it"? Cue huge debate? No. You say, this steak please, well done, because I like it like that. Gets what you want, no argument, no book length discussions on The Effectiveness Of Communication Methods.

Anyway, nice post.

copper2• 15 years ago

If I can offer my own reaction as a guide, I'd find the list less rude if I could trust it was written by someone with an actual record of successful management. I've known a few people who talk this way, and had a past record of turning projects into Hell Marches.

That said, I'd be interested in what you think of raldi's take on this list - he's rewritten it to be both concise and, (lacking a better word) classy. It is far less likely to raise hackles and makes an interesting comparison to the original. And well, knowing his record, I'd much rather work with Mike than with whoever wrote the original :)

enko2• 15 years ago

> Hi! I bet you're super nervous about meeting me, but please don't be -- I'm just a big dork.

Frankly I prefer the original. Same meaning, less couched in happy-happy bullshit. At least with the original I feel like I'm being addressed as an adult. The re-write reads like something a school principal gives to his students. The original - well, with a few tweaks maybe it's something I could imagine sending out myself. The rewrite, with its fake chatty "we're all such good buddies" schtick? never.

"I'm just a big dork", bloody hell, someone please shoot me the day I start saying things like that. It's a sliding scale between sounding like an asshole, and sounded like a goofy douchebag pretending he's everyone's bestest bestest buddy. The original might have been slightly biased to the former; the rewrite is way too far in the other direction.

justincormack• 15 years ago

I have been to restaurnts which refuse to cook steak well done actually.

ZoFreX3• 15 years ago

I have clients that are blunt, to the point, and value time extremely highly, and yet are extremely polite. In fact, a common factor across the clients I would consider to be rude is that they tend to use up disproportionate amounts of my time! It's perfectly possible to be brief, concise, and still make room for manners, and I appreciate anyone that does so.

The clients I love most are the ones are considerate, and I think the rest of their behaviour comes from that: Communicating clearly and concisely, yet remaining polite, and valuing my time as well as theirs, are all things I think follow from being considerate.

I think it's hard to argue that demanding everyone do things your way is considerate. To use your analogy, no, I don't expect the chef to argue with my choice. But if I order a particular cut one way, and the waiter comes back saying "Sir, the Chef highly recommends you instead have that particular cut with the such-and-such sauce" for example, then I might take that on board. And I might not. But to sit down at the table and state up-front that I want to hear no talking back from the chef before I place my order would certainly be rude, and possibly result in me having a lower quality meal due to my poor choice of sauce (and perhaps having another "sauce" added due to my loose tongue).

Edit: There is some validity to using one-size-fits-all approaches particularly in some management situations I suppose (not so experienced in that area), but personally if I could decrease effeciency a little in order to remain polite, I would do so. I suspect a lot of the polarisation on the topic is due to this, as there's no real "right answer" there.

Morcane• 15 years ago

Sounds like a prenup, and a bitter, angry, lonely person.

MicahWedemeyer2• 15 years ago

I love it when our overlords refer to us as minions. Plus, it's a double-treat when concern for the feelings of others is perceived as being a weakling.

I'm actually kind of glad that the world of software development is filled with people who pride themselves on ignoring the soft skills of working in a team. That makes it sooooo much easier for me to get a job, since all I have to do is show a teeny, tiny bit of humanity and congeniality in a job interview and I'm way above the other candidates.

brown9-22• 15 years ago

If you have a meeting with me at an assigned time, and I am in another meeting with my door closed, interrupt me. I stack meetings, and each meeting leads into the next.

How is this anything but rude to the parties involved?

How to work with me - a no BS approach

Related Stories