Coworker invents untrue and illogical info about projects
June 18, 2022 5:04 PM Subscribe
When I am working with a particular coworker on projects, they tend to randomly introduce untrue, unfounded, and illogical ideas about what we're supposed to be doing and then refuse to back down. Sometimes it's easy enough to say, "Okay, let's work on a different part for now and come back to this," but sometimes the disagreement is about something fundamental to what we're doing, so we can't move forward without external clarification/correction, which makes it hard to get anything done. It also really pushes my buttons, and I'm tired of getting angry, so I'm looking for advice on how to handle this more productively, or maybe a pop-psychology/self-help term to describe their behavior, so that I can find advice elsewhere.
As an example, let's say we've been asked to write a report that compares how different widgets perform in a specific context. Typically, we would start by discussing what we're supposed to be doing and why, and we usually seem to be on the same page after that. But then, as we start working, the person will suddenly and randomly bring up something new, like, "Well, for the first 2 widgets, the context is supposed to be comparable to the context we used for that other project, so..." Except no one has ever said this to us, and it wouldn't make a lot of sense anyway, in light of what we're supposed to be doing (which we have seemingly just agreed on). So then I might say, "Oh, that's not what I understood. This is entirely separate from the other project. Can you say more about why you think that?" And they'll usually say we were told that explicitly (which we weren't, which is verifiable), or they'll back it up with some other statement about the project/report/context that also isn't true (also verifiable, but usually so unrelated to anything that it wouldn't be worth it).
If this only happened occasionally, I wouldn't mind having a real discussion about it – obviously, I could also be wrong! I'm wrong all the fucking time, so ordinarily I'd be fine with taking time to figure out where the idea has come from, whether there's been a miscommunication somewhere, whether the person and I are misunderstanding each other as we're talking about it right then, etc. etc. And then, if truly necessary, we can confirm with someone else what we're supposed to be doing. And I did that the first few times, even though I was sure they were mistaken somehow, which they were.
But this person does this repeatedly. They bring things up that are incorrect, that don't make sense, that seem to come from nowhere, and that are really annoying and time-consuming to verify. Especially because "verification" is usually just asking someone, "Can you confirm that we're not supposed to do this random thing that we were never told to do and that also doesn't make sense to do?" (Fun fact: you never run out of things you weren't told to do because you weren't supposed to do them, but you still have to verify each one separately.)
FWIW, I'm not a "Well, actually..." type of person, nor a "Someone is wrong on the internet" type of person, and I'm not interested in correcting people basically ever. Life is too short. I'm trying to be generous and constructive, and I assume that my coworker just has a bad memory, or bad reading/listening comprehension, or this is some other cognitive/psychological issue with them, and that this is not intentionally being done to provoke me, even when I do feel gaslit sometimes.
Is there a good way to address this? Or is there a name for this behavior, so that I can learn more about how to deal with it?
As an example, let's say we've been asked to write a report that compares how different widgets perform in a specific context. Typically, we would start by discussing what we're supposed to be doing and why, and we usually seem to be on the same page after that. But then, as we start working, the person will suddenly and randomly bring up something new, like, "Well, for the first 2 widgets, the context is supposed to be comparable to the context we used for that other project, so..." Except no one has ever said this to us, and it wouldn't make a lot of sense anyway, in light of what we're supposed to be doing (which we have seemingly just agreed on). So then I might say, "Oh, that's not what I understood. This is entirely separate from the other project. Can you say more about why you think that?" And they'll usually say we were told that explicitly (which we weren't, which is verifiable), or they'll back it up with some other statement about the project/report/context that also isn't true (also verifiable, but usually so unrelated to anything that it wouldn't be worth it).
If this only happened occasionally, I wouldn't mind having a real discussion about it – obviously, I could also be wrong! I'm wrong all the fucking time, so ordinarily I'd be fine with taking time to figure out where the idea has come from, whether there's been a miscommunication somewhere, whether the person and I are misunderstanding each other as we're talking about it right then, etc. etc. And then, if truly necessary, we can confirm with someone else what we're supposed to be doing. And I did that the first few times, even though I was sure they were mistaken somehow, which they were.
But this person does this repeatedly. They bring things up that are incorrect, that don't make sense, that seem to come from nowhere, and that are really annoying and time-consuming to verify. Especially because "verification" is usually just asking someone, "Can you confirm that we're not supposed to do this random thing that we were never told to do and that also doesn't make sense to do?" (Fun fact: you never run out of things you weren't told to do because you weren't supposed to do them, but you still have to verify each one separately.)
FWIW, I'm not a "Well, actually..." type of person, nor a "Someone is wrong on the internet" type of person, and I'm not interested in correcting people basically ever. Life is too short. I'm trying to be generous and constructive, and I assume that my coworker just has a bad memory, or bad reading/listening comprehension, or this is some other cognitive/psychological issue with them, and that this is not intentionally being done to provoke me, even when I do feel gaslit sometimes.
Is there a good way to address this? Or is there a name for this behavior, so that I can learn more about how to deal with it?
This sounds like something to bring up with your manager (and the coworker’s manager, if different from yours), and for the manager to actually deal with. Focus on the impact on your job (“We wasted a lot of hours on the last several projects because Person X kept getting confused about the requirements”) and ask what they will do to correct it. No guarantee that this will fix anything, especially in the short run, but they are certainly in a better position than you are to try to force a change.
posted by mbrubeck at 5:21 PM on June 18, 2022 [17 favorites]
posted by mbrubeck at 5:21 PM on June 18, 2022 [17 favorites]
Is there a name for this behavior?
Analysis paralysis.
posted by virago at 5:51 PM on June 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
Analysis paralysis.
posted by virago at 5:51 PM on June 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
Agree about taking notes on it and talking to your manager, but if it's at all helpful, maybe you could record (and easily auto-transcribe, via Otter) any meetings you have with whoever's making the assignment, if it's not all in writing initially. Then you'll at least have everything clear on your end so you can correct them right away without going in circles.
posted by pinochiette at 5:53 PM on June 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by pinochiette at 5:53 PM on June 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
Documentation, documentation, documentation.
Record the meeting, and post the recording and/or transcript online, and whoever chaired the meeting will do a "okay, so we agree on we will do A, B, and C. Last comments?" near the end. If necessary, call out everyone present in the meeting by name, and have them affirm it. No more weaseling.
posted by kschang at 6:17 PM on June 18, 2022 [18 favorites]
Record the meeting, and post the recording and/or transcript online, and whoever chaired the meeting will do a "okay, so we agree on we will do A, B, and C. Last comments?" near the end. If necessary, call out everyone present in the meeting by name, and have them affirm it. No more weaseling.
posted by kschang at 6:17 PM on June 18, 2022 [18 favorites]
Write up a clear, concise Project Scope document. It should have 2 sections (more if you want, but these are essential):
In Scope - this should describe, in short, prioritized, sentences (bullets, even, if that works) the goals and desired outcomes/attributes that are required for a successful project
Out of Scope: this is where you document the stuff that was thought about, but determined not in scope for the project. Can include a prioritized list of “nice to haves” in the (unlikely) event there’s extra time to include anything not defined as In Scope.
I helped facilitate writing such a document for every successful project I ran in my 20 years as a project manager. A defining feature of the unsuccessful projects was the lack of defined scope. Your team and stakeholders should both agree on what’s in/out of scope, and if the effort is quick, then the doc can be short and not too onerous to produce. For longer projects (6-12 months to complete) the time spent on the doc will pay you back many times over as the project goes along.
It’s not set in stone, change *always* happens on a project, so the doc can also be a living document that reflects *agreed-upon* change, and the ramifications of same (giving up something else, pushing out a deadline, etc).
posted by dbmcd at 6:28 PM on June 18, 2022 [24 favorites]
In Scope - this should describe, in short, prioritized, sentences (bullets, even, if that works) the goals and desired outcomes/attributes that are required for a successful project
Out of Scope: this is where you document the stuff that was thought about, but determined not in scope for the project. Can include a prioritized list of “nice to haves” in the (unlikely) event there’s extra time to include anything not defined as In Scope.
I helped facilitate writing such a document for every successful project I ran in my 20 years as a project manager. A defining feature of the unsuccessful projects was the lack of defined scope. Your team and stakeholders should both agree on what’s in/out of scope, and if the effort is quick, then the doc can be short and not too onerous to produce. For longer projects (6-12 months to complete) the time spent on the doc will pay you back many times over as the project goes along.
It’s not set in stone, change *always* happens on a project, so the doc can also be a living document that reflects *agreed-upon* change, and the ramifications of same (giving up something else, pushing out a deadline, etc).
posted by dbmcd at 6:28 PM on June 18, 2022 [24 favorites]
Pursuant to the excellent remarks above I (please be aware, I am a noted bastard and wish I wasn’t but I am and so…) would suggest you really drive it home when they’re going off-scope.
…like literally force them to admit something is off-scope, force them to explain why they’re going off-scope, and force them to back down in public.
posted by aramaic at 7:39 PM on June 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
…like literally force them to admit something is off-scope, force them to explain why they’re going off-scope, and force them to back down in public.
posted by aramaic at 7:39 PM on June 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
I'm not interested in correcting people basically ever. Life is too short. I'm trying to be generous and constructive, and I assume that my coworker just has a bad memory, or bad reading/listening comprehension, or this is some other cognitive/psychological issue with them, and that this is not intentionally being done to provoke me, even when I do feel gaslit sometimes.
That's the thing, though - how much of your short life are you wasting verifying nonsense? Sometimes flat out correcting people is the way to go. Like is often said here, "No is a complete sentence." I 110% have (and do) work with people who have bad memories and short attention spans and whatever (my own personal bête noire at the moment is a few folks who catch only part of a conversation I'm having with someone else and who then god knows why assume that I'm talking about a project they're involved in) and sometimes the best way to stop a thing going off the rails is to halt the derail ASAP with a flat, "Nope! That's outside the scope of our project, we were never instructed to do X, doing Y makes no sense whatsoever, we're doing Z."
Admittedly, I don't have a "corporate" job, so I can probably get away with being ruder about it than your average bear. But "Oh, that's not what I understood. This is entirely separate from the other project. Can you say more about why you think that?" sounds . . . like, very "personal relationship" to me? It's very gentle, and it may be giving your coworker an opening to interpret this as uncertainty on your part, so the bullshit they pulled up off the top of their head because they weren't paying attention actually might be relevant as far as they know, because you sound unsure (or willing to negotiate), so they double down.
This may especially be true if there's a gender element at play here - namely, that you're a woman and your coworker is a man.
Personally, I would try pushing back more directly and earlier, with documentation.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:37 PM on June 18, 2022 [31 favorites]
That's the thing, though - how much of your short life are you wasting verifying nonsense? Sometimes flat out correcting people is the way to go. Like is often said here, "No is a complete sentence." I 110% have (and do) work with people who have bad memories and short attention spans and whatever (my own personal bête noire at the moment is a few folks who catch only part of a conversation I'm having with someone else and who then god knows why assume that I'm talking about a project they're involved in) and sometimes the best way to stop a thing going off the rails is to halt the derail ASAP with a flat, "Nope! That's outside the scope of our project, we were never instructed to do X, doing Y makes no sense whatsoever, we're doing Z."
Admittedly, I don't have a "corporate" job, so I can probably get away with being ruder about it than your average bear. But "Oh, that's not what I understood. This is entirely separate from the other project. Can you say more about why you think that?" sounds . . . like, very "personal relationship" to me? It's very gentle, and it may be giving your coworker an opening to interpret this as uncertainty on your part, so the bullshit they pulled up off the top of their head because they weren't paying attention actually might be relevant as far as they know, because you sound unsure (or willing to negotiate), so they double down.
This may especially be true if there's a gender element at play here - namely, that you're a woman and your coworker is a man.
Personally, I would try pushing back more directly and earlier, with documentation.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:37 PM on June 18, 2022 [31 favorites]
separate from kschang's recommendations to thoroughly document the scope of the project, it would be in your best interest to document your coworker's behavior and actions specifically. keep a journal and use it daily. (monday: nothing happened. tuesday: coworker was super weird. wednesday: nothing happened.)
mrbrubeck suggested bringing it up with the appropriate manager. i second that. sooner rather than later. and when you do, i also recommend you put that in your weirdo coworker journal (thursday: coworker was weird again. today i spoke with so and so manager.)
if you are experiencing contention in a workplace setting its possible it could escalate. if you work with someone who tends to "randomly introduce untrue, unfounded, and illogical ideas" and might also "bring things up that are incorrect, that don't make sense, that seem to come from nowhere," you aren't describing rational behavior.
and if nothing ever happens, then you spent a few minutes everyday journaling and you've practiced your penmanship. if, however, you coworker starts complaining about you, you have documentation: of their behavior, your behavior, the manager you brought it up with, and all the individuals you reached out to for clarification.
posted by Time To Sharpen Our Knives at 10:10 PM on June 18, 2022 [5 favorites]
mrbrubeck suggested bringing it up with the appropriate manager. i second that. sooner rather than later. and when you do, i also recommend you put that in your weirdo coworker journal (thursday: coworker was weird again. today i spoke with so and so manager.)
if you are experiencing contention in a workplace setting its possible it could escalate. if you work with someone who tends to "randomly introduce untrue, unfounded, and illogical ideas" and might also "bring things up that are incorrect, that don't make sense, that seem to come from nowhere," you aren't describing rational behavior.
and if nothing ever happens, then you spent a few minutes everyday journaling and you've practiced your penmanship. if, however, you coworker starts complaining about you, you have documentation: of their behavior, your behavior, the manager you brought it up with, and all the individuals you reached out to for clarification.
posted by Time To Sharpen Our Knives at 10:10 PM on June 18, 2022 [5 favorites]
Oh goodness, this sounds frustrating. I once supervised a research student who would get sidetracked with random ideas all the time. Like a task would be "run this lab test according to this protocol today" and he'd decide to investigate if there was a way to manufacture one of the reagents from scratch rather than using the supply that we had purchased specifically for that lab test. The test would not get done. He meant well, but was really bad at following instructions and not getting sidetracked. The solution we came up with was that he kept a list entitled "things that are interesting but are not part of my project" and when he came up with some random idea he would have to consider whether it was actually part of his project and if not he would write it on the list and get back to his project.
This worked for us because I was his supervisor and he knew staying on task was something he struggled with and wanted this sort of direction. It would have been a lot more challenging if it was a colleague that I did not have authority over. I think you need to discuss your co-worker's behaviour with your manager and highlight the inefficiency as co-worker sounds like someone who needs close supervision to stay on task and that's a manager's responsibility not yours. And document everything as suggested above. I don't know the name for this sort of behaviour but it probably isn't intentional or aimed at you so perhaps reminding yourself of that can help reduce the frustration.
posted by emd3737 at 12:40 AM on June 19, 2022 [5 favorites]
This worked for us because I was his supervisor and he knew staying on task was something he struggled with and wanted this sort of direction. It would have been a lot more challenging if it was a colleague that I did not have authority over. I think you need to discuss your co-worker's behaviour with your manager and highlight the inefficiency as co-worker sounds like someone who needs close supervision to stay on task and that's a manager's responsibility not yours. And document everything as suggested above. I don't know the name for this sort of behaviour but it probably isn't intentional or aimed at you so perhaps reminding yourself of that can help reduce the frustration.
posted by emd3737 at 12:40 AM on June 19, 2022 [5 favorites]
Are you the one who's been doing all this verification? It should be on them: if they come up with some idea that requires changing the agreed-upon plan of action in any way, they need to back it up first. Until they can do that, work proceeds as usual.
If they claim someone told them but didn't tell you -- great, first they need to produce documentation of that. If they say they have a different understanding than you of the project specs -- fine, first they need to verify that in writing and CC you.
If you don't trust them to be able to do the verification in a coherent way, such that they get clear, relevant answers that resolve the question, that's another problem.
posted by trig at 12:47 AM on June 19, 2022 [17 favorites]
If they claim someone told them but didn't tell you -- great, first they need to produce documentation of that. If they say they have a different understanding than you of the project specs -- fine, first they need to verify that in writing and CC you.
If you don't trust them to be able to do the verification in a coherent way, such that they get clear, relevant answers that resolve the question, that's another problem.
posted by trig at 12:47 AM on June 19, 2022 [17 favorites]
In such a situation, the burden of proof should be on the co-worker, and - this is crucial - as long as they don't bring the proof, everyone should proceed based on the assumption that you are right and they are wrong. So whenever co-worker starts with one of their tangents, you shut it down on the spot "we'll talk about that once you show it to me black-on-white that we are actually supposed to do that." Co-worker might find that overly domineering, and complain, but I'm fairly confident no-one else will agree given co-worker's track record of missreading assignments.
It's still plenty annoying, because co-worker will still waste a lot of time on verifications, before providing actually useful contributions, but you can only minimize your own engagement with the foolishness.
posted by sohalt at 2:03 AM on June 19, 2022 [10 favorites]
It's still plenty annoying, because co-worker will still waste a lot of time on verifications, before providing actually useful contributions, but you can only minimize your own engagement with the foolishness.
posted by sohalt at 2:03 AM on June 19, 2022 [10 favorites]
Nthing those who say, "Make the coworker verify the bad information." Get used to saying things like, "I don't remember that being in scope - can you find where it says that in the previous meeting notes/reach out to [stakeholder] to confirm?" And be ready to be gracious on the off-chance they're right!
And yeah, better documentation may help.
posted by mskyle at 3:52 AM on June 19, 2022 [5 favorites]
And yeah, better documentation may help.
posted by mskyle at 3:52 AM on June 19, 2022 [5 favorites]
Is there a name for this behavior?
Confabulation maybe.
posted by rhizome at 11:19 AM on June 19, 2022 [1 favorite]
Confabulation maybe.
posted by rhizome at 11:19 AM on June 19, 2022 [1 favorite]
1) Work from a project brief
2) Require any additional "verifications"(asked and answered) be in writing
3) Require "track changes" use while updating that brief
No idea whether your colleague has analysis paralysis, another form of anxiety, a processing disorder, taken against being assigned to projects with you, a sealioning, obstructionist bent, a corporate saboteur side-hustle, or _____, but it certainly seems that all the talking ("asked to do new project" --> "derailment by discussion" --> "ask authority to confirm specific detail" --> "yet more spitballing and delays") is not helpful to you. Moreover, the current process lacks the paper trail you need to sidestep getting partnered with this particular colleague, as someone else in the company may really click with their style of discovery.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:20 AM on June 19, 2022 [4 favorites]
2) Require any additional "verifications"(asked and answered) be in writing
3) Require "track changes" use while updating that brief
No idea whether your colleague has analysis paralysis, another form of anxiety, a processing disorder, taken against being assigned to projects with you, a sealioning, obstructionist bent, a corporate saboteur side-hustle, or _____, but it certainly seems that all the talking ("asked to do new project" --> "derailment by discussion" --> "ask authority to confirm specific detail" --> "yet more spitballing and delays") is not helpful to you. Moreover, the current process lacks the paper trail you need to sidestep getting partnered with this particular colleague, as someone else in the company may really click with their style of discovery.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:20 AM on June 19, 2022 [4 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
1. They’re feeling anxious about starting the actual work, so the verification thing lets them procrastinate?
2. They get some kind of emotional reward from the verification process, for instance do they feel bored because the whole task is time-consuming but writing that verification email is a fast way to feel like at least one thing is “complete”?
3. Writing that email makes them feel important?
4. The verification process is an excuse for them talk to someone they have a crush on or are otherwise trying to impress?
5. They have an actual cognitive issue such as mild dementia? (Seems like a long shot but who knows)
posted by nouvelle-personne at 5:13 PM on June 18, 2022 [4 favorites]