
How to work with me - a no BS approach - beagledude
http://nullisnull.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-to-work-with-me.html
======
hugh3
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.

~~~
raldi
> 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.

~~~
alex_c
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.

~~~
raldi
My goal in writing that was to illustrate the _opposite_ of the original. The
correct approach is probably somewhere in the middle.

> Do we really need to soften everything?

It sounds like you're trying to create a strawman. No, we needn't soften
everything. But we should probably soften _some_ things. One could just as
well ask, do we really need to be brusque 100% of the time?

> Are our egos so fragile that we can't take a little bluntness

Again, I'm not talking about "a little" -- reading between the lines, I can't
help but wonder if the boss is like this all the time, if his reign is so
brittle that he can't suffer a dash of kindness even in the memo that provides
his first impression to new employees.

One of the hardest parts of leadership is knowing when to be harsh and when to
let up.

------
j_baker
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.

~~~
skorgu
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_baker
"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.

------
dredmorbius
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.

~~~
troels
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.

~~~
dredmorbius
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.

------
enko
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.

~~~
copper
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 :)

~~~
enko
> 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.

------
geoffc
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.

~~~
skorgu
> #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).

------
r00fus
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.

~~~
danilocampos
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?

~~~
hugh3
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.

~~~
VladRussian
it depends on who is the boss. Lets suppose that your GF gave your 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

...

would you think that she is an asshole? Nope. Instead, you'd most definitely
think that she is a queen.

Thinking back to the original blog and rules - well if your boss is an asshole
who thinks about himself like queen - well, in that case such rules seems to
be expected and there is no other way around except to change the job.

~~~
hugh3
_it depends on who is the boss. Lets suppose that your GF gave your a printed
list which says:

...

would you think that she is an asshole? Nope. Instead, you'd most definitely
think that she is a queen._

lolwut? Dude, if that's how the power differential in your relationship works
then you definitely need a new girlfriend. Or maybe she needs a new boyfriend.
One or the other.

~~~
VladRussian
well, man, i'm happily married for a more than a decade, and enjoy my meat and
non-smoking (did quit long time ago :).

------
JoshTriplett
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.)

~~~
hugh3
_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.

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

------
ChristianMarks
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.

------
walexander
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.

~~~
borkt
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.

------
jusob
"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.

------
IgorPartola
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.

------
cHalgan
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...](http://hbr.org/2011/05/defend-your-research-effective-managers-say-
the-same-thing-twice-or-more/ar/1)

    
    
      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.

------
sedev
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
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.

------
jasonmoo
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.

~~~
hugh3
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.

~~~
jasonmoo
u mad bro?

------
datadon
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
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

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

------
mattdeboard
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.

------
ryandvm
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.

------
ulisesroche
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.

------
al-king
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.

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

------
wglb
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.

------
MicahWedemeyer
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.

------
rexreed
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".

------
achilds55
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.

------
hasenj
How to work with _me_ :

\- Don't boss me around.

Thank you very much.

------
cwbrandsma
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.

------
cdcarter
"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.

------
shabble
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!')

------
aculver
If this resonates with you, you may enjoy reading <http://randsinrepose.com/>
and [http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Humans-Humorous-Software-
Engi...](http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Humans-Humorous-Software-
Engineering/dp/159059844X/) .

------
datn
This person is a jerk.

------
quadyeast
2 and 15 seem to contradict each other.

~~~
dredmorbius
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.

------
brown9-2
_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?

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

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

