7 ms·

How do you work with an individual who _insists_ they understand how it all works? Even when faced with hard evidence that contradicts their assessments, I'm st

• sandwall 7y ago
  There's a parable... If you meet an a__hole in the morning, you met an a__hole. If you meet a__holes throughout the day, you are the a__hole. Moral of the story, if it's just one person, let them be. You don't have to win.
  • wallace_f 7y ago
    This is such a dreadful idea to spread. Many of humanity's most valuable individuals have died alone, become pariahs or were persecuted by their peer groups. This obviously also happens to entire groups of people, not just individuals. This happens all the time, even in ordinary places where it is clearly wrong. I can even remember back in primary school a couple instances of even teachers bullying unfortunate students.
    • orange8 7y ago
      Maybe you misunderstood the saying? An a-hole is the bully, not the victim. The valuable people you talk about are the victims of a-holes.
      • tomashubelbauer 7y ago
        Yes, and they kept meeting assholes throughout the day, so IMO that adage is a lot of bull. :-)
    • philpem 7y ago
      I agree -- you really only need Galileo as an example of this. G: "I can prove the world is round!" Everyone at the time: "Liar! Heretic!" Later people: "Hmm. Galileo was right. The world IS round! In fact, it's an oblate spheroid..." Sadly people are often easily lead. All it really takes is one person in good standing in a group to shout "Liar!" and suddenly the whole group is doubting the truth of what's being said.
  • jdc 7y ago
    I prefer the weaker version: "If one person tells you you're drunk, and you feel fine, ignore him. If ten people tell you you're drunk, go and have a lie down."
• jamil7 7y ago
  Avoid interaction with the individual outside of the bear minimum required for work and try and learn to let things go. You'll be much happier for it. If not start looking for a new job.
• AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Document, and shut up. Document every time they say something false - time and date and medium, and exact words. Shut up: for each instance, say once that they're wrong, then don't argue. When it matters, when there's a decision where this person's view is threatening to sway matters in the wrong direction, go with a massive documentation dump - everything they've said on the subject, exact words and date and time and context, and evidence of what reality is. Or else quit. If you quit, when you go, say why.
  • keanzu 7y ago
    This is terrible advice. When you quit you no longer have a stake in the game. Say NOTHING beyond platitudes.
    • soup10 7y ago
      Quitting would be more about not wanting to work with idiots than the parting shots.
    • airstrike 7y ago
      The first piece is fine advice. But after quitting, definitely agree you have nothing to gain from saying anything.
    • andrewflnr 7y ago
      Serious question: What actually goes wrong, in concrete terms, if you explain that you're leaving because you don't want to work with someone who is aggressively incompetent? I get that people won't like it, but how am I actually harmed by speaking the truth? I've heard a lot of wishy-washy answers about burning bridges, but I have trouble making myself believe that's enough reason to let someone continue fucking shit up when they might be stopped if someone just knew what was happening. Edit: Assume I've already accepted the risk of slightly lower lifetime earnings due to following principles rather than the money.
      • AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        Slightly lower lifetime earnings? How would that happen? It might happen if word ever got back to the aggressively incompetent one, and he (maybe it's a stereotype, but I'll assume male gender given the description of the behavior) was in some position of influence at a future job of yours. Well, people do change, sometimes even for the better, but I'd think twice before hiring at such a place in the future. Or, managers believe him instead of you (or choose to keep him in place and blame you for the message that they didn't like), and those managers wind up at a future place. Same story - it's your cue to not work there. If this burns you, it burns you at places you didn't want to work for anyway. Note well: If it's a small job market, this may be a more costly action.
• daveslash 7y ago
  I don't think I can really help, but for what it's worth -- you're definitely not alone. You may not have this option... but in my org, we can submit feedback to a co-worker's manager at any time during the year. I have, on occasion, submitted negative feedback. I really _really_ dislike doing that. I feel dirty every time. But I view it as a responsibility. I work for a company that designs & manufactures devices that can mean life or death; every time I submit negative feedback I tell myself that it's for the well being of the end-user. When I submit negative feedback, I avoid being vague; I give precise, specific, and well documented examples and try to be as objective as possible. When other co-workers confide in me that they are frustrated with someone else, I give them the same advice: I encourage them not to tell me too much - let's be professional. But, because I respect them as a professional as well, I trust that their feelings are valid and not unfounded. I then tell them to make sure the appropriate people (managers) know - and point them to the feedback link. My hope is that if a manager gets enough negative feedback on a report (and it's all consistent), the problem will sort itself out during the next round of layoffs. Edit: For each piece of negative feedback that I submit, I try to counter act that with positive feedback about somebody else. I'd like to think it acts a little bit like up/down voting.
• m463 7y ago
  I don't think you will ever convince someone they're wrong. I'm reminded of the beginning of "How to Win Friends and Influnce People" by Dale Carnegie. It spoke of a man who murdered a policeman when he asked to see his driver's license. He went through a trial and ended up in the electric chair. I think the point was the guy didn't say "This is what I get for killing someone" instead he said "This is what I get for defending myself" You should not let people like this torment you so. Instead, become a zen master. Develop openness, curiosity and a sort of lighthearted kindness. No scowling or taking things personally from unenlightened troglodytes. You live in the clouds!
  • notfashion 7y ago
    The presence of the term "gaslighting" in the comment you are replying to implies that this might be a situation involving narcissism. It's all very well, in a pop psych way, to tell someone "be more zen", but there is little useful overlap between that advice and the course of action that is usually recommended for people dealing with a serious narcissist (to get away from them any way you can). I don't think you're helping by bringing positive pop psychology and generic consumer zen "mastery" to what is effectively a borderline clinical mental health situation. Narcissism and gaslighting (whatever the actual situation described in the previous comment) are way beyond what can be smoothed away with equanimity and a good attitude. It's unhelpful and a bit condescending to suggest otherwise.
    • arandr0x 7y ago
      The above situation seems to happen at work, and it's unusual for people with personality disorders to simultaneously have major breaks with reality at work and be undiagnosed long-term. It's odd that it's the first interpretation you are choosing to address (by calling somebody else condescending to boot), although yes, the proper reaction to people with issues that severe is backing away slowly, so it's worth being said to cover all the bases.
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    • 7y ago
• shortandsweet 7y ago
  Have them repeat back your point of view in their own words. That's all you can do. People are either rational or irrational. You can't change that part.
• vvanders 7y ago
  If the needle isn't moving and you've exhausted the escalation path(which it sounds like you have) it's time to start looking around. People like that drag orgs down and it's a management problem that either gets recognized and dealt with or people leave. It totally sucks but sometimes if you can't change the dynamics then you need to change the environment you're in.
• arandr0x 7y ago
  You have no idea what they do or don't understand because all you have to go on is a noisy model of their mind in yours. You need to focus on facts, actions and consequences. They don't understand how it works (your explanation) THEREFORE they question things that you thought had been put to rest? Ask them what would their opinion be IF (factual thing they're mistaken on) was true. Sometimes people do not disagree with you on facts; but their emotions can't let them agree on courses of action. Often you can direct people (with questions) towards verbalizing exactly what you wanted to tell them in the first place. They don't understand how it works (your explanation) THEREFORE they are saying falsehoods about it to others? Correct the facts one by one as they come by, their model will self-update eventually. That comes standard with the human being firmware. They don't understand how it works (your explanation) THEREFORE they are making assumptions or having expectations of your own work that are wrong? Kindly redirect by asking what factually they think is wrong with this part of your work, and what they think can be done about it, and who they think is the right person to do it. (I am being vague because you don't specify if the person is your superior, but if not, you can be more forceful in wording) There is a chance you are in fact misinterpreting their words, because of incompatible jargon, either of you sucking at communication, or irreconcilable difference of interests.
• throwawayleaver 7y ago
  I've been in the same position quite a lot recently, so I thought I'd add my 5c. There are a few conclusions I've come to that depend on the person doing this: 1. Gaslighting - definitely possible, though not the first assumption you should make. 2. The person very badly doesn't want it to be true. Usually this is because they're on a tight deadline and/or may not be accustomed to working in a team (who may not share their own deadline). 3. The person doesn't understand your area, and doesn't want to. Their existing (less complete) understanding says that it should work this way. You are therefore the incompetent one, not them. (On #1, you could be justified in making that conclusion first if your experience resonates strongly with this - highly recommended reading - https://www.issendai.com/psychology/sick-systems.html https://www.issendai.com/psychology/sick-systems.html) (On #3 - working in an area your boss('s boss's boss, etc) has little or no respect for is hard. This is the basis for the "do you see engineering as a cost centre or value centre?" question when going for interviews.) Coincidentally with a sibling comment, I'm reading How to Win Friends and Influence People at the moment, and I concur: you can't convince someone they're wrong. Arguing is almost never the best course of action (in any situation). Some solutions I've found that work sometimes (to address the symptoms at least) - - Ask them to try it for themselves. Let them use the app / make the request / build the component / create the logical argument / read the docs / read the bug reports / etc. - Ask them for help to find the solution, or ask if you can leave it with them. - Ask them to demonstrate it working as they believe it should. Once you've done any or all of those things, go have lunch. (I'm assuming they won't want to pair on it there and then given the situation.) Sometimes when you get back, magic will have happened, and they will have "discovered" it doesn't work - and they'll immediately ask you to do something different, often urgently. Note you won't usually get credit for raising the issue in the first place. At best you're still in the "doesn't understand the considerations at my level" basket in their mind. But nonetheless you'll be asked to do something differently to move past this block. If that doesn't happen, document somewhere that you've hit this issue, reference the conversation, and any documentation (or write it yourself) and move to another piece of work. If #2 or #3 are in play, missing a deadline is likely not actually your responsibility. Other times the problem is systemic (which ironically can be a euphemism for "personal"), in which case you may be better off just leaving (assuming you're in a position to do so). You do you, let them do them, without you.
• sjg007 7y ago
  You basically go deeper.. the standard psychological way to do this is to listen and genuinely be interested and ask them to tell you more. Be curious about why they think what they do. Don't argue but seek an understanding of where they are coming from. Usually this forces them to think through their arguments. In the end they will hopefully see the incompetence of their position and probably adapt. This is not easy to do but if you ever have had a highly skilled manager you will see them do this in a group dynamic where there is conflict. It's basically magic.
  • agumonkey 7y ago
    A french dude has a youtube channel around the skepticism theme. He went to some naturist pseudo science thing and met a woman who was arguing about EMW toxicity backed by a ton of references. He took a long time to ask deeper and deeper, she had a lot to say, but after an hour he finally pinned her to a void at the root of her theory. It's a long and hard thing to do IMO, gotta have serious patience.
• i_feel_great 7y ago
  Have you tried sarcasm? Works a treat. Little by little, undermine them by agreeing but disagreeing with subtle sarcasm until they doubt themselves. Works, but don't become an asshole yourself.
  • philpem 7y ago
    I'm not certain that 'doing the wrong thing for the right reasons' is justifiable. Especially gaslighting another person. When you stare into the abyss, the abyss not only stares back, but also pulls you in...
  • watwut 7y ago
    > Little by little, undermine them by agreeing but disagreeing with subtle sarcasm until they doubt themselves. This tactic is more toxic then ego itself.