Those are good tips. I would also add "don't engage with them on anything that isn't work-related".
I have a coworker who is difficult to work with because he insists on political conversations. "Don't engage" is working well there. Every time he tries to talk politics, I immediately shift the conversation to a work topic. I keep hoping that he'll catch the hint, but even if he never does, doing that still avoids unnecessary workplace strife.
Avoiding political conversations at work is probably a good idea even with people you do get along with.
Getting along great doesn’t always mean two people will agree on every topic. And obviously people do not need to agree on every topic to have a fantastic time working together.
Also, depending on the context, other people might overhear part of the conversation and disagree, get offended, etc.
But do you want to work with people you cannot disagree with? Like, at some point we will probably disagree on work related topics as well, and I'd expect it to go somewhat similarly.
The problem is that our culture provides us with few models of how to effectively agree to disagree. Indeed we often elevate the most stubbornly obstinate in their views with unfortunate trickle down effects on all of our discourse. It's a shame that in cases like this we can't easily say things like: I hear you but I have a different take and I don't think this conversation will be constructive so let's stay focused on X. Or even, I agree with you, but this isn't the time or place for this conversation so let's stay focused on X.
What do you think would be effective models? I ask because your final two statements sound like effective topic changers. Is the difficulty that it takes so many words to say? Or that people generally feel awkward about those kinds of statements
Society does provide ways, but people don't always care. They won't take a hint, because they want an argument. They'll keep trying to get what they want.
My grandmother was one of those people. She wanted to "win debates", in her words. I'm not sure the winning ever happened, but she tried for decades.
Do you mean work settings? I think traditionally Sex has been a staple of social settings; it's why a non-trival amount of people play novice sports (to meet future spouses).
I once was hired as a type of consultant for an internal matter. The company had a lot of in-house developed software from various internal departments situated in different countries.
A whole bunch of representatives traveled to a single location focusing on one such important application. We had 10 local versions of it. Plan is to get rid of all of them and align on what should go into a single new one that was to be built.
The sessions were a total disaster. A tragedy of the commons situation where each representative did not cooperate or align, instead they all tried to "win" each and every little detail. Frustration grew, there was shouting, petty revenge behavior, toddler-like silence (I refuse to further speak), people simply leaving, and even people crying from stress.
In the debrief with the session leader, she was still traumatized. She watched me dutifully make notes and then asked: how do you do this?
During the sessions, which lasted 2 days, I was at perfect peace amidst a bunch of screaming pseudo-adults. Completely unbothered. I'm not talking about controlling my frustration, I had none at all.
Because I don't care. It's a super power. Which obviously needs to be applied responsibly.
I used to have a lot of trouble when trying to not care about stuff. I didn't care about most stuff, but it used to be impossible to not care about stuff I was naturally interested in.
Now after almost three years raising a toddler I can see clearly when people are behaving like babies. And I'm used to handle a stressed baby who is not cooperating for God knows why. It happens quite frequently and I just play along. I got used to being there, offering support without any expectations (because he usually doesn't want any at that point), trying things out just to give him a chance to take the bait, etc. Now it just feels like life is finally making sense to me. I catch myself applying this to my relationship with my wife, to my work, etc. I feel like I would probably not make these realizations nor develop this mindset if it wasn't for my kid.
I don't have kids, but I can totally understand how that would increase one's tolerance for chaos.
I think I "don't care" because I'm very analytical. Already at a very young age did I realize that this world doesn't make much sense in that it's not very logical, consistent or fair. It's more like a game to play.
So you develop a kind of "humans going to human" attitude where you detach from drama. Or at least pick your battles.
Point is to control emotion (negative side at least) and get stuff done. Perform like a "professional killer" who kills problems (I remember there is a manga with this topic).
There are always too many people losing their control of themselves (or don't have enough from the beginning). If possible, help them. If not, help yourself and don't bother.
We are entities with limits. Spending time on things we cannot/will not do is a waste (I value my will almost as important as my capability, we are humans not slaves/machines).
As far as I understand, the fastest way to correct a work relationship going sour, without having to go through an emotional rollercoaster, is to find a connection, no matter how small. Maybe you both enjoy/dislike something, maybe you're both experts at a particular thing, etc.
Sounds like a lot of HN people just don't like desire friends period. Like work is just a begrudging duty to attend to for half their waking lives but do it in tech because it pays extremely well for less investment (compared to other professions like doctors and Lawyers).
Again, It's half your life in your most active years so Idk how I'd tolerate a lonely workplace in top of an increasingly lonely world. Does everyone just suffice using online dating and posting here for other socialization?
Even a shared love of Star Trek can result in irreconcilable differences and huge battles. I'd never want to work with somebody who likes Holodeck episodes or doesn't love Gowron.
That said, there are some times that even Star Trek fans and Star Wars fans can actually get along.
I'm bistellar: I love both Star Trek AND Star Wars!
This has just brought back vivid memories of the person I used to work with where the one thing we had in common was actually a love of Star Trek. I still have no idea how he loves it so much given he apparently learned absolutely nothing from it, seemingly every belief and behaviour he held was something that would have Picard facepalming.
I had a smart, thoughtful coworker that I just couldn’t mesh with. Something about our personalities were oil and water. One day it came up that we were both fans of the same video game genre, and from then on we had something pleasant to chat about. That tiny bit of personal connection had more of a smoothing effect than I would have expected.
Well, the thing is, if you try to fight a jerk with their own weapons, others around you will see you behaving as a jerk as well. And then you've lost more than just another argument.
I prefer the Columbo method. No matter emotional the other person gets, remain calm, polite, and respectful in ALL of your responses. Remember that an angry person's only goal is to get you angry as well in an effort to blind you to the facts. Then when you trip up, they point at you and say, "Ha! See? You were wrong!" A professional manipulator can be very, VERY good at this. The most important thing to remember is: just don't get angry no matter what. You can't control THEM, but you CAN control YOU.
If they are the type who can _eventually_ be reasoned with, then relentlessly question their facts, poke holes in their logic, and eventually they will likely shut up or go away. Or, possibly, you might learn something you didn't know and they weren't good at articulating it well, and you can both move forward with a better understanding. It sucks that some people can't put forth a rational argument without making it a flame war first, but that is sometimes the way it goes.
But if they just want to argue, then a simple, "sorry, but I really have to focus on X right now," followed by the silent treatment always works as a last resort.
You don’t need to match a heated affect to stand up to bullying. You just need to know where your lines are, and stand your ground. It can be done calmly, and might even be more effective that way.
A bully needs standing up against, full stop, but was OP arguing any bullying was involved? I indeed share the experience that it helps to find commonality if you have to work with someone you don't jibe with. The not jibing doesn't have to be nasty.
We had a writing exercise in one of my college creative writing classes. You were supposed to write down 5 things you hate about someone you dislike. Then you’re supposed write down 5 things you admire about them.
Really taught me a lot about my perspectives and what real humility looks like.
This is good advice but when given I often hear pushback; there are no other jobs, why should I leave, or we need a union etc. If a job is making you feel bad, you should leave, because no matter what you're not likely to change that job. People bristle at this notion..
You can be fight for what you think is right but go into that battle understanding you have a high chance of losing. It is a noble endeavor and society needs people willing to pay the personal price to make forward progress. Only you can decide if this is the hill you want to die on.
The second choice is to put yourself and/or your family first and move on. It's just a job. This second choice will almost always result in more happiness and possibly even wealth for you.
Which is more important to you? Fighting for some form of "justice" here or being happy?
To be fair, it isn't a drop of a hat to switch jobs. Just look at the current tech market. It ain't always an option even here.
And while I get job hopping because of money (bigger pay bumps, company loyalty is dead), I still wouldn't want to hop Too often. That will also make it harder to jump later on when a really good opportunity comes up.
It also brings up an old adage: "when everything around you smells, look under your shoe". Of every job has "someone" that annoys you in different ways, you may need more than a change of environment to address that.
My first boss told me once: "You can either change your job or change your job" and that's how I always looked at it. Try to effect change, but don't force it.
I don’t really like that first quote because, at least from what I have observed, really shitty people tend to operate in circles, as do really great people. It is perhaps not until you make a massive life change, such as moving city, that you realise that assholes were dominating all of your previous social circles.
I mean, that is a valid solution. If you're a highly liberal person and you're in conservative central, you will be seen as the asshole. Or maybe it's something more tame like being a sports buff outside of work among a sea of techies who talk about nothing but programming. It's all relative.
Either way, the quote to me reflects a need to either change yourself or your environment.
Even worse, what’s the advice for when your cofounder is the ceo, has a higher stake than you, and is borderline incompetent? But you’re funded and the idea has promise. Quite the catch 22. Do you stay and do all the work while this person is along for the ride? Assume you can’t push them out
From my experience, if your CEO is not competent, the business is doomed to fail without an immense amount of luck.
I've worked in a startup that had funding, and a good idea, but the CEO couldn't run a business. He also wouldn't let any of the reigns go to people who COULD run the business, so it was miserable. We'd change directions at least once a week, we'd have him promising customers things that we obviously couldn't deliver, and he'd sign contracts we couldn't honour. He was also abusive to the staff, with the exception of one, who was also incompetent but brown-nosed relentlessly.
If the idea has promise, leave, wait out any non-compete and start again without them. Heck, they may even close down and you'd be free to do as you wish. Or move on if there's no way to do that without being sued into the ground. Life is too short to be miserable at work.
Yeah, I really really wish I could have a run at it myself. It just feels like this huge amount of baggage, and all the value I’m creating is accruing to someone else. I’m at the point to where there’s no real reason to communicate with him other than to keep up appearances, there’s no decent information/ideas/perspectives/developments coming from that side of town.
It still feels foolish to walk away, I could probably will this business into some level of revenue. Question is if it’s worth it to me, a liquidity event would be so far away.
Did they do the fundraising? Do your primary investors like and appreciate this person? If neither are true, talk with your investors and perhaps they can offer advice.
Maybe try to remember the reasons you originally wanted to start a company with them? I'm curious what those reasons are if this person is incompetent and trying to start a company. Did they bring the idea AND the money?
I'm in a related situation. I've been working for a company for years, and the owner is incompetent in most areas except sales. His original company is over a decade old but now almost dead. Somehow he's still getting investor money and for the past 5 years has been trying to start a new business, but keeps pivoting before anything is actually released to the public. I'm the main dev and it's getting frustrating, but I know without me he definitely won't get anywhere. And the pay vs time invested is pretty good at the moment.
Help the person grow in a way that minimizes what you perceive as incompetence. How is this not the obvious answer versus drastic action?
Are they bad at contributing technically? Are they lazy? Are they bullish on bad decisions? Do they not listen to input? Are they reckless? Are they overly optimistic? Are they morally dubious? I've yet to meet a founder-type that didn't exhibit at least one (often two) of those traits.
Who would found a company together with somebody without knowing that person very deeply? You can't be in business if you're incompetent in the most basic skill for businesses: understanding people. How didn't you know before that he or she was incompetent? That makes you completely incompetent as well. Learn people skills before trying to start a business again, or you will be burnt.
Good situations come up, X millions raised. Takes a few months of working with someone to understand them. It’s probably still better than working a regular job
Stay but don't wipe their ass for them. Allow the natural consequences of failure to fall on their head, then when they are frustrated and scared offer to resolve the problem for additional equity and or a fixed fee.
Basically set boundaries, those types set very clear boundaries around the money so that's a great place to look when considering what your time boundary is.
If everything else works, or you can make it work, eventually as you scale their incompetence will show, and they will be helped into one of the roles for founders like these: CSO, CIO, CPO, etc.
It is also possible that you just don’t understand their competency or value. It isn’t a given that high skill in rational discourse is necessary for everyone.
> Even worse, what’s the advice for when your cofounder is the ceo, has a higher stake than you, and is borderline incompetent?
I know someone in a similar situation. My advice at the time: get a big white board and a keep running score on who was right on any particular decision. I don't think they took me up on that suggestion.
This isn't helpful if you're already in that situation, but I would never be a cofounder in a venture where all the cofounders didn't have the same stake.
Back when I worked in the incredibly dysfunctional video game industry, it was common for various key technical people to become soured over the course of the 18 months of 7 day weeks... After they'd threatened to quit multiple times, extorted the studio for as much raise as the studio could afford... they'd call me in to be the guy that talks his attitude down for the duration of the remainder of the production. I have the skills to evaporate anguish, overt aggression, and talk pragmatic sense into people pushed over the edge. You may have heard of the incredibly stressful day to day working at EA Sports; several of those games in the 90's were in serious risk of never completing because the team were going to kill one another - then they called me in.
Enlighten us, gamedev whisperer. Seriously though - that had to be some stressful situations and a lot of people could benefit from hearing how you were able to de-escalate things.
Just be a person, real person that listens to them, agrees when they make sense, but also point out contractual obligations, ramifications of leaving, never threats, just calm discussion. I was at E.A. when 3D0 flopped, and learned a lot about handling stress.
>they'd call me in to be the guy that talks his attitude down for the duration of the remainder of the production.
sounds like the solution is to not work 7 day weeks, or pay them more in some way (more vacation after shipping, more money). But I get it, that's unheard of for 90's game industry.
I'll do my best to make you look good, if you do the same for me and everyone else.[1]
Sometimes it works well. Sometimes it doesn't. It's not that I don't like the person per se. It's that that person typically likes themselves too much, and the rest of stand in that shadow (read: blind spot).
People talk about being nice and being kind, etc. at work. Sure, that helps. But first and foremost...Do. Your. Job. And don't neglect the team either.
[1] This work "agreement" is a more optimistic riff on another heuristic I have: When you expect more of me than you do of yourself, we have a problem.
Readit News
I have a coworker who is difficult to work with because he insists on political conversations. "Don't engage" is working well there. Every time he tries to talk politics, I immediately shift the conversation to a work topic. I keep hoping that he'll catch the hint, but even if he never does, doing that still avoids unnecessary workplace strife.
Getting along great doesn’t always mean two people will agree on every topic. And obviously people do not need to agree on every topic to have a fantastic time working together.
Also, depending on the context, other people might overhear part of the conversation and disagree, get offended, etc.
Deleted Comment
My grandmother was one of those people. She wanted to "win debates", in her words. I'm not sure the winning ever happened, but she tried for decades.
Not engage on any topic outside the strictly necessary for work: a passive-aggressive way to keep the animosity forever
I once was hired as a type of consultant for an internal matter. The company had a lot of in-house developed software from various internal departments situated in different countries.
A whole bunch of representatives traveled to a single location focusing on one such important application. We had 10 local versions of it. Plan is to get rid of all of them and align on what should go into a single new one that was to be built.
The sessions were a total disaster. A tragedy of the commons situation where each representative did not cooperate or align, instead they all tried to "win" each and every little detail. Frustration grew, there was shouting, petty revenge behavior, toddler-like silence (I refuse to further speak), people simply leaving, and even people crying from stress.
In the debrief with the session leader, she was still traumatized. She watched me dutifully make notes and then asked: how do you do this?
During the sessions, which lasted 2 days, I was at perfect peace amidst a bunch of screaming pseudo-adults. Completely unbothered. I'm not talking about controlling my frustration, I had none at all.
Because I don't care. It's a super power. Which obviously needs to be applied responsibly.
I used to have a lot of trouble when trying to not care about stuff. I didn't care about most stuff, but it used to be impossible to not care about stuff I was naturally interested in.
Now after almost three years raising a toddler I can see clearly when people are behaving like babies. And I'm used to handle a stressed baby who is not cooperating for God knows why. It happens quite frequently and I just play along. I got used to being there, offering support without any expectations (because he usually doesn't want any at that point), trying things out just to give him a chance to take the bait, etc. Now it just feels like life is finally making sense to me. I catch myself applying this to my relationship with my wife, to my work, etc. I feel like I would probably not make these realizations nor develop this mindset if it wasn't for my kid.
I think I "don't care" because I'm very analytical. Already at a very young age did I realize that this world doesn't make much sense in that it's not very logical, consistent or fair. It's more like a game to play.
So you develop a kind of "humans going to human" attitude where you detach from drama. Or at least pick your battles.
Point is to control emotion (negative side at least) and get stuff done. Perform like a "professional killer" who kills problems (I remember there is a manga with this topic).
There are always too many people losing their control of themselves (or don't have enough from the beginning). If possible, help them. If not, help yourself and don't bother.
We are entities with limits. Spending time on things we cannot/will not do is a waste (I value my will almost as important as my capability, we are humans not slaves/machines).
This is like disassociating your sense of identity or ego from your opinions/thoughts according to Eckhart Tolle.
This is something like being "aware" or "being an observer" of yourself according to Zens.
This is something like "stillness" according to stoics.
Congratulations! You've unlocked your "deeper self" :D
Oh Star Trek played a vital role in both our formative years? That’s nice, but let’s get back to solving the matter at hand.
Again, It's half your life in your most active years so Idk how I'd tolerate a lonely workplace in top of an increasingly lonely world. Does everyone just suffice using online dating and posting here for other socialization?
The way to get things done with difficult people is:
1. Work out (for yourself) what you really want*
2. Work out (for yourself) what they really want*
3. Accept that they want that
4. Work maturely and fairly within that context.
No cookie cutter management fluff is going to get you anywhere useful with intelligent people.
* Usually people want their situation to either be more rewarding (read: recognition or control) or less taxing.
Edit: Acknowledging this here, because it does apply to this comment:
5. Draw the rest of the owl
That said, there are some times that even Star Trek fans and Star Wars fans can actually get along.
I'm bistellar: I love both Star Trek AND Star Wars!
I prefer the Columbo method. No matter emotional the other person gets, remain calm, polite, and respectful in ALL of your responses. Remember that an angry person's only goal is to get you angry as well in an effort to blind you to the facts. Then when you trip up, they point at you and say, "Ha! See? You were wrong!" A professional manipulator can be very, VERY good at this. The most important thing to remember is: just don't get angry no matter what. You can't control THEM, but you CAN control YOU.
If they are the type who can _eventually_ be reasoned with, then relentlessly question their facts, poke holes in their logic, and eventually they will likely shut up or go away. Or, possibly, you might learn something you didn't know and they weren't good at articulating it well, and you can both move forward with a better understanding. It sucks that some people can't put forth a rational argument without making it a flame war first, but that is sometimes the way it goes.
But if they just want to argue, then a simple, "sorry, but I really have to focus on X right now," followed by the silent treatment always works as a last resort.
Really taught me a lot about my perspectives and what real humility looks like.
You have two choices here.
You can be fight for what you think is right but go into that battle understanding you have a high chance of losing. It is a noble endeavor and society needs people willing to pay the personal price to make forward progress. Only you can decide if this is the hill you want to die on.
The second choice is to put yourself and/or your family first and move on. It's just a job. This second choice will almost always result in more happiness and possibly even wealth for you.
Which is more important to you? Fighting for some form of "justice" here or being happy?
And while I get job hopping because of money (bigger pay bumps, company loyalty is dead), I still wouldn't want to hop Too often. That will also make it harder to jump later on when a really good opportunity comes up.
It also brings up an old adage: "when everything around you smells, look under your shoe". Of every job has "someone" that annoys you in different ways, you may need more than a change of environment to address that.
"If you're gonna keep talkin I'm gonna put you in the trunk" - also Raylan Givens
Either way, the quote to me reflects a need to either change yourself or your environment.
I've worked in a startup that had funding, and a good idea, but the CEO couldn't run a business. He also wouldn't let any of the reigns go to people who COULD run the business, so it was miserable. We'd change directions at least once a week, we'd have him promising customers things that we obviously couldn't deliver, and he'd sign contracts we couldn't honour. He was also abusive to the staff, with the exception of one, who was also incompetent but brown-nosed relentlessly.
If the idea has promise, leave, wait out any non-compete and start again without them. Heck, they may even close down and you'd be free to do as you wish. Or move on if there's no way to do that without being sued into the ground. Life is too short to be miserable at work.
It still feels foolish to walk away, I could probably will this business into some level of revenue. Question is if it’s worth it to me, a liquidity event would be so far away.
I'm in a related situation. I've been working for a company for years, and the owner is incompetent in most areas except sales. His original company is over a decade old but now almost dead. Somehow he's still getting investor money and for the past 5 years has been trying to start a new business, but keeps pivoting before anything is actually released to the public. I'm the main dev and it's getting frustrating, but I know without me he definitely won't get anywhere. And the pay vs time invested is pretty good at the moment.
Are they bad at contributing technically? Are they lazy? Are they bullish on bad decisions? Do they not listen to input? Are they reckless? Are they overly optimistic? Are they morally dubious? I've yet to meet a founder-type that didn't exhibit at least one (often two) of those traits.
Basically set boundaries, those types set very clear boundaries around the money so that's a great place to look when considering what your time boundary is.
It is also possible that you just don’t understand their competency or value. It isn’t a given that high skill in rational discourse is necessary for everyone.
I know someone in a similar situation. My advice at the time: get a big white board and a keep running score on who was right on any particular decision. I don't think they took me up on that suggestion.
Deleted Comment
sounds like the solution is to not work 7 day weeks, or pay them more in some way (more vacation after shipping, more money). But I get it, that's unheard of for 90's game industry.
I'll do my best to make you look good, if you do the same for me and everyone else.[1]
Sometimes it works well. Sometimes it doesn't. It's not that I don't like the person per se. It's that that person typically likes themselves too much, and the rest of stand in that shadow (read: blind spot).
People talk about being nice and being kind, etc. at work. Sure, that helps. But first and foremost...Do. Your. Job. And don't neglect the team either.
[1] This work "agreement" is a more optimistic riff on another heuristic I have: When you expect more of me than you do of yourself, we have a problem.