How can I be more assertive at work without being a jerk?

February 10, 2013 6:37 PM

A new person started at work recently and has been trying to get the company to change course and use the tools they're used to. I've been taking the brunt of it and have ended up being really defensive. How can I be more assertive with this person, but also not end up coming off like a jerk? And how do I learn to work with this person? Snowflake stuff inside.

I work at a small web development company. We've got our own de facto standards for development with regards to languages and frameworks. A new person recently started at the company in a mid-level to senior position, which makes them at the same level as me. In the short time they've been with us, they've managed to both chastise our current ways of doing things, and push really hard for us to more or less wholly adopt the frameworks they're used to. Here's an example: several meetings were held recently under the guise of "evaluating frameworks" but have really just been a way to point out the shortcomings of our standards and why this other system is so much better. This has made work for me extremely stressful. I've had to bear the brunt of this criticism, and have basically been forced into a defensive stance.

Despite it having been repeatedly stated that the company is not going to wholesale adopt this person's frameworks, they've repeatedly tried to get around this. I think this new person's close-mindedness to how things are currently done is detrimental to the company. In our discussions I've tried to be open-minded and accepting of a new option, but I feel like when it comes time for them to make decisions, they're going to fall back on their single option.

Since this person and I are supposed to be equals, I don't feel like I have the authority to tell them to pipe down. I've brought this up with our superiors, and they've talked to this person about toning down their rhetoric. I can't help but be paranoid that the company is going to go down a path that it probably shouldn't.

Now, here are my questions:

1. Other coworkers, as well as friends and family, have told me that I need to be more assertive with this person. I can't figure out how to do that without, well, being a dick. How do you push back on someone who's being that aggressive/assertive?
2. I'm going to monitor the situation and see what happens, but I feel like I should be more vocal with my superiors if I notice things. On the other hand, I don't want to be a tattletale. What's the right way to get around this?
3. Since we're supposed to work together, I feel like that means we should at least be of the same mindset when decisions need to be made. Is that a realistic thing to say, and if so, how do I get us to synchronize and move forward from here?

posted by anonymous to work & money (16 answers total)

Is it your decision what framework is going to be used? While you may know better about what is best, sometimes, people in charge of you make different decisions. Why waste energy being paranoid that they'll make bad decisions? It's a job. If it gets too crappy, think about getting a different job. It sounds like you are not in the position to make the big decision, so don't torture yourself about how it's going to end up. The best thing you can do is give good advice within the scope of your position, and recognize that it's not your decision.

Despite it having been repeatedly stated that the company is not going to wholesale adopt this person's frameworks,
Who has stated this? If mgmt, then you can continue to work within the current framework. You don't need to tattletale; if your coworker does a bad job because he's not working in the current framework, that will come back to bite him. If he does a good job and mgmt is happy even though he didn't follow the rules, you will look bad tattling.

He may be right that your current system has some weaknesses and that is why he is being allowed to hold sway at these meetings. Mgmt may be curious to hear what could be better. They may decide he's right, or they may decide he's an idiot. You don't need to defend yourself for having worked within the current standards; you just need to listen to him and decide whether you think he's right. If he has some merit, the best thing for you to do is to agree with him; there's less harm in agreeing that current things are bad than holding tight to things that are bad.
posted by Tandem Affinity at 6:53 PM on February 10 [2 favorites]

Take as much emotion out of the discussion as you can. This isn't about them vs. you; it's about choosing a framework based on the pros and cons of each. Do your best to objectively evaluate their claims. If you disagree with them, give clear, objective reasons why you're right. Usually the optimal solution is somewhere in between your two extremes.
posted by mcav at 6:55 PM on February 10 [4 favorites]

Here's an example: several meetings were held recently under the guise of "evaluating frameworks" but have really just been a way to point out the shortcomings of our standards and why this other system is so much better.

"We seem to spend a lot of time in meetings discussing these points. I think it would be helpful if instead you summarized your suggestions in a memo to for review and markup; I'm afraid we're just going to go in circles otherwise."

And see if the spark fizzles out when you invite action over mere talk and the new guy becomes better acclimated to the firm culture.

Also, you refer to your own organization's standards as "de facto". Is this a stable situation? It would be a shame to have a more useful system be replaced by a less useful one simply because the latter was better documented somewhere other than the brains of the people using it.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 7:10 PM on February 10

If this person truly doesn't know what they are doing, it will show up eventually; since you have already gone to the higher-ups, leave it there and just do your part of the job as best you can/as you have been requested to do. And let the other person do whatever they are going to do.

But don't think of it as being passive; think of it as giving them enough rope to either prove themselves or hang themselves with.

New hires are often expected to bring in new ideas, and that's not always a bad thing. Be willing to try new ideas unless there is a really large (lawsuit-causing, client-insulting) reason not to. Maybe they won't work; maybe they will.

Your family doesn't really need to weigh in here (not their job at stake) and maybe don't do a lot of griping with coworkers, as that can make you look bad.

Instead, try to take a position of Open-Minded but Practical Oldtimer. Document anything that might have blowback to protect yourself, otherwise, let it go.
posted by emjaybee at 7:18 PM on February 10 [1 favorite]

I like InspectorGadget's idea, and I think you should go one step further to ask that his memo address specific points of weakness in both frameworks. If we're talking about a technical person here (and sometimes even if we're not), rubbish political reasons are not going to be satisfying rebuttals for him. You need to find some legitimate technical justification for sticking with your current framework. "We do it this way" doesn't cut it.

On the other hand, the cost of transitioning is perfectly valid, so if you can't think of any technical reason to reject his framework, then ask him for a detailed migration plan. Either he shuts up or produces something you can genuinely support.

(I say this as someone who was recently on the other side of two of these conversations. In one case, my boss and his boss both agreed with everything I said, but had different priorities when it came to scheduling work. So we budgeted a little time every week for my refactoring, less than I had hoped but more than I was getting. In the other case, I'm probably wrong, but now I have a five-item list of concerns to investigate before I can raise the issue again.)
posted by d. z. wang at 7:25 PM on February 10 [1 favorite]

I don't understand your options given because they skip the option of simply saying, "I don't agree, here is why..."

You should be saying that directly to the person each time this shit comes up, and then honestly working with them to see a compromise.

If you can't do this, then you and this person are a bad fit, or you are not confident enough in your position. Or you are confident enough, but you have poor communication skills in the area of "speaking up."

Stop with your superior and direct your opinions and comments to this person you are supposed to be collaborating with! Geez!

This is how endeavors fall apart, when one person feels the other one is drowning them out. Speak up. If after speaking up repeatedly in a professional manner gets you no where, then address this with superiors.

This person is passionate. Match their passion in a professnal manner, work towards consensus. Keep working towards consensus firmly in mind.

Making this "them or me" in your mind in undermining you here. Sop that now. Change your attitude, see if that helps!

As for how you do it? YOU SIMPLY SPEAK THE WORDS AND THEN LISTEN.

It is that easy. Really.
posted by jbenben at 7:32 PM on February 10 [2 favorites]

I didn't see anything at all in your question, even in the most general way, about why you are against adopting this new person's recommendations and why you or your company is not going to make big changes from what you currently use. I presume there are good reasons, and if you haven't discussed those in detail with the new person either, it would explain the other person's frustration and persistance.
posted by Dansaman at 7:42 PM on February 10 [2 favorites]

The problem with this person's approach seems to be that they've automatically put you (and others it sounds like) in the defensive by coming in "all guns blazing" on the issue.

Unfortunately for you and them this means you're all going to be push back more against the guy's ideas and can make it hard to really take them on board.

My approach would be to acknowledge the suggestions and actually try to set a timeframe to really get into them. Put together a small group to really actually examine the current tools, his suggestions and others. Set a timeline for evaluation, discussion and conclusion.

Try to have an open process to really openly look at the issues and do a decent report on the whole lot at the end to help figure out the process going forward. Hopefully everyone feels better if the issue can be handled in a fairly formal and open way.

In my experience people coming into companies from the outside can often have really good insights into aspects that those within the company are effectively blind to. If you can find the right way to capture that insight then there can be a great benefit. But of course those people have to understand that they can't just have everything the way they had it before.
posted by sycophant at 7:56 PM on February 10

As a web dev I totally understand this particular argument. You need ammo to fight fire with fire. Sure, your current framework has issues -- they all do. But you already have a team who knows this current framework. What are the cons of switching? You'll need time to ramp up/train your current in house talent. What is the effect of this on business deliverables? Your immediate turn around time for new products and features could be severely affected as you learn the new stack. What about server infrastructure, how does a new framework change what you currently have? The new framework has issues as well (none are perfect) - what are they? Why are those issues less 'bad' than your current ones?

Figure out these answers (and others as relevant obviously) so you can effectively argue your point. You dont want to be seen as the one protesting change just because you don't like change, you want to appear like you've considered his opinion, weighed the options, but respectfully disagree -- and these are the reasons why. Better yet, if you can make him look like one wants to change just for the sake of changing, well, bonus!

Be passionate but calm and clear headed - and argue with facts, not opinion. Maybe you're right, maybe he is, maybe there's a solution in the middle. You need to present your side clearly, calmly and effectively, and let the chips fall where they may.

Now if only I could always follow my own advice...
posted by cgg at 7:58 PM on February 10 [1 favorite]

What is your relationship to the current system? Did you create it, was it your decision to purchase it? Sometimes I've developed loyalties to systems that created stress for me when the systems were attacked. Realigning your loyalty to the company mission or to your team helps.

I'd start from a position that you are perfectly willing to change to a new system IF it makes good business sense. And I'd frame all of your conversations with that in mind.

What does it really mean for you if the company *does* change systems? Would this mean you were out of a job? Would it mean that you had to learn something new? Would it mean that something you had worked hard on building or installing was scrapped? Thinking through that might help you - maybe? - feel less threatened and defensive. And it's a lot easier to be assertive when you aren't feeling threatened.

Maybe sit down and write through the pros and cons of both systems so in meetings you can more easily be calm and clear - "It's true that X has this vulnerability, however we have compensated by doing Y. At this point it seems that to completely change our system would mean a lot of manpower, training, and money to fix a non-issue."
posted by bunderful at 8:08 PM on February 10 [1 favorite]

From the OP:

Interesting thoughts all around. It's true that I need to separate emotion from logic, and right now I'm just coming from an entirely defensive, emotional standpoint.

Here's a follow-up question: it's clear that I need to be more open-minded about accepting their framework into our list of potential solutions. Given that they've been so single-minded about us switching over to their solution, how do I get them to be more open-minded about any of the current solutions that we have in place that actually work for us? Seems that the door should swing both ways on this.

posted by restless_nomad at 8:44 PM on February 10

A bunch of people here have advocated "make the new person write up a position paper" but at least in my experience that never solves anything; it's one step up from "make the person write a blog post saying why their solution is awesome". Especially if this a small shop with just a few devs, just give them a reasonable-sized project (like, doable in a week or two) and have them do it in the new framework. When they get done, have them present it to the team and talk about what they think the specific pluses are -- how they were able to write this project in less time* or fewer lines of code or better testability or whatever. And while they are working on this, they have to be spending at least 50% of their time working on some other project in the normal framework, so they'll get some context and be better able to compare. If worst comes to worst, someone will have to rewrite their stuff in the existing framework and you'll be out a couple of weeks of dev time.

*You do have to cut them a little slack on the time, since presumably they'll have to build some things you already have built for your own solution. But if they're going to argue it's more efficient they still have to demonstrate that the actual project work is faster.
posted by inkyz at 9:32 PM on February 10

evaluating frameworks - get into some balanced scorecard action. If you're truly going to evaluate then you should truly evaluate.

The frameworks that this person wants to use may have merit, may not.

People don't like change - I certainly don't like shifting frameworks, but when shown evidence as to why I should then I'm bound to try it out.

You don't have to be a jerk about it, just help create the environment where both frameworks can be dispassionately evaluated, and this should lead to one or even both being adopted.
posted by mattoxic at 9:38 PM on February 10 [1 favorite]

So, I'm that other guy. Not on purpose. New area, I had some ideas I was passionate about, got a group of people together, put the ideas out there - and sure, had a few digs at the status quo, but honest, well-intentioned digs - and my workplace's version of you started to really stress out.

So with the benefit of hindsight: most of the advice above seems reasonable and logical, but it won't work, because reason and logic are out to lunch. It's personal. Of course it's personal. Standards are values. They're how we say what's most important to the group - what behaviours define us, what we cherish as good and right. What's more personal than a clash of views about that?

Evidence and evaluation won't enter into it. It's about personalities and rhetoric and alliances, same as any disagreement about values anywhere since forever. You can try to be cool and calm. You're still saying no, so you're still on the defensive, and after a while there's an air of desperation, and people can smell that and want to avoid it. Plus, nobody likes to be around stressed people, because you stress them out. You're that stressed, kinda sad person who says no to that energetic guy who's passionate about...something, I don't know. You're one step away from Crazy Cat Lady.

It doesn't even have to be a good idea. You could be completely right. But if the idea is new, and not too different - 'it's the same thing, just slightly better, and not old!' - and somebody puts it out there innocently, and then somebody opposes it just a little too hard...

...and it's downhill for that last guy from there, and the idea guy doesn't have to do a thing. I really, really like my last guy, but damned if he doesn't keep dousing himself in unleaded and setting himself on fire just to try to burn me.

The best you can do is passively, quietly do nothing to help, and hope all the others do the same. Chances are you've already polarised the group, though, and half of them are with the ideas guy just because they don't want to be with a stressed person who keeps saying 'no'.

(Take care of your mental health! Seriously, arguments about values lead to feeling horribly undervalued, and then hopeless, and that's a slippery slope to depression.)
posted by obiwanwasabi at 2:56 AM on February 11 [3 favorites]

When I read your question I didn't see anything about how your/his manager are involved in this discussion. I would want to be having parts of the discussion you are having here with my manager/supervisor. If they want a change, then it will happen. If they don't, it won't. Either way knowing what they want is central to this conversation. If, when you say that he's been told that the company won't be going his way, you mean that he was told by a superior, I would simply refer him to that discussion rather than engage with him too much about it.
posted by OmieWise at 10:05 AM on February 11 [2 favorites]

I had an experience like this once. I was the project manager and we were sharing some preliminary results of our beta release of the software and I summarized some bugs we encountered. A peer of mine who wasn't on the development team vocally criticized the quality control and process that lead to the bugs. He was quite visceral about the thing, exclaiming at one point that this "is no way to run a project".

The kicker here is that for weeks we talked about how this was part of the plan. We didn't want to keep this thing under wraps for months to get it "perfect" because we needed user feedback from a trusted beta user community. Everything the guy was saying would have been accurate, albiet not charitable to me and the team, in a different context.

In that moment I gave him time to speak his mind and then firmly explained the central goals and offered to get together one on one outside the meeting to talk about it further. He ended up declining to talk about it, but he also didn't criticize like that ever again.

Maybe it won't work with everyone but in general I think you have to take the tone that you are the more adult-minded person in the conversation without being condescending. Acknowledge the person's affinity for framework X, even say a few aspects you like about it, but explain how the business goals mesh with framework Y at this time. Be open to how this will change when the business changes. In this way, the decision is not the province of the most influential technologist in the room -- you are firmly on the side of what the business needs. When you are firmly established on that platform it isn't very attractive or wise for him to be oppositional.
posted by dgran at 12:47 PM on February 11 [3 favorites]