minoanmiss (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
minoanmiss) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
agonyaunt2025-03-31 02:09 pm
minoanmiss) wrote in agonyaunt2025-03-31 02:09 pm
Entry tags:
Ask a Manager: should I write a list of rules so a colleague treats me decently?
(The lede is 6 feet down here. Contains: volunteering, sexism in practice regardless of what is in anyone's heart, autism.)
This is a community organizing issue, but it is ultimately about working closely with someone where there’s conflict, and one where I think a professional approach might be most useful.
I (they/them) am a leader in a social justice-oriented community organization along with someone I’ll call Paul (he/they). We have the same type of leadership position, and we’re both quite active so we communicate daily and are in meetings at least once a week. We’ve been in conflict for four months, since I told Paul that the way Paul interrupts, criticizes, corrects, scolds, and dismisses me and other folks who were assigned female at birth feels sexist. Paul’s response? They didn’t really understand how that could be, because they aren’t “that attached to masculinity,” but they would take my word for it.
However, Paul’s behavior hasn’t changed, and I have subsequently found out that two people have stepped away from the organization because of what they also perceived as sexism from Paul. Regularly — sometimes multiple times in a week — I have to be really direct saying “don’t interrupt me” or “I just answered that question,” etc. At times, this disrespectful behavior impacts the group’s work, such as when Paul speaks for me on an issue where they don’t have correct information or when Paul goes behind my back and gives instructions to someone I’m assigned to work with that are in tension with what I’m telling that person. In these situations, I have been telling Paul that this is frustrating/unacceptable/etc., admittedly sometimes with annoyance. Paul often responds that they are confused and don’t understand what they did. Sometimes, I also get long rants with expletives, personal remarks, and accusations. It’s inappropriate behavior, even if I am communicating very unclearly, which is what Paul believes is the problem. Paul has recently been pursuing a diagnosis of autism, and it feels to me that they are weaponizing this new diagnosis, which is not fair to other autistic people in our organization, who don’t behave this way.
There’s no “boss” or HR in this situation, but there are a few people we both trust and who have the cultural capital to potentially help us try to move toward a better way of working together. One of them has heard us each out and feels that we need to make a written agreement about how we will interact so that Paul has clear rules to follow. My concern is that I have repeatedly communicated what isn’t acceptable to me, and Paul hasn’t changed their behavior. I’m struggling to figure out how I would write up a list of rules that Paul would respect. Moreover, this really isn’t an issue just between Paul and me; it’s more about Paul’s behavior in general. Other options include me leaving the group, which is possible though not ideal, and another option is that I continue to just hold boundaries with Paul (trying to always communicate extremely clearly!), which is also not ideal but is something I could do. Paul is certainly not the first person I’ve worked with who has treated me in a way I experience as sexist! I know Paul doesn’t want either of these options; they want a list of rules. I’m wondering what guidance you would offer on how to proceed. Is it worth trying the written agreement to see if it helps? What would I even put in such a list? What options haven’t I considered?
I wrote back and asked, “Does anyone have the authority to fire Paul or otherwise remove him from the group?” The answer:
As far as I know, there is no process in our org for removing someone for this level of problematic behavior.
The biggest problem here is that there’s no mechanism for removing someone who’s driven off multiple people.
You’ve already lost two people because of Paul. Is the organization willing to continue losing people just to avoid getting rid of him?
I think that’s the bigger issue, even though it’s not the one you’re writing to me about. As a leader in the organization, you have the standing to bring that to the rest of the leadership and argue that the org needs to be willing to remove volunteers who won’t follow a basic code of conduct or are otherwise disruptive or harmful to the organization.
As for the idea of a written list of rules for Paul … eh. You’ve already told him what needs to change — he needs to stop interrupting, criticizing, scolding, and dismissing other members of the group — and he claims not to understand. I’m skeptical that putting it in writing is going to suddenly open his eyes. But sure, if this idea of a written list is being pushed by others in your leadership, you might as well write up the list so that you can say you’ve done it and there’s no question that Paul has been clearly told what needs to change. (And if autism is in play, the list could genuinely be helpful.) In addition to covering the interrupting, criticizing, scolding, and dismissing other members of the group, you should also include that Paul can’t send ranting emails with expletives and personal insults.
But I think you also need to be thinking about what’s going to happen if/when he continues to be an ass despite receiving the list. Right now your org can’t figure out how to resolve this because it’s denying itself an essential tool in running a healthy organization (the willingness to part ways with someone) and this is unlikely to be solved until that changes.
To be clear, that doesn’t even mean you’ll definitely need to cut Paul loose (although I suspect you will). Sometimes just making it clear that’s an option on the table will get the person to change their behavior. Either way, though, being willing to do that is an absolutely crucial part of running an effective organization that people won’t keep fleeing from.
This is a community organizing issue, but it is ultimately about working closely with someone where there’s conflict, and one where I think a professional approach might be most useful.
I (they/them) am a leader in a social justice-oriented community organization along with someone I’ll call Paul (he/they). We have the same type of leadership position, and we’re both quite active so we communicate daily and are in meetings at least once a week. We’ve been in conflict for four months, since I told Paul that the way Paul interrupts, criticizes, corrects, scolds, and dismisses me and other folks who were assigned female at birth feels sexist. Paul’s response? They didn’t really understand how that could be, because they aren’t “that attached to masculinity,” but they would take my word for it.
However, Paul’s behavior hasn’t changed, and I have subsequently found out that two people have stepped away from the organization because of what they also perceived as sexism from Paul. Regularly — sometimes multiple times in a week — I have to be really direct saying “don’t interrupt me” or “I just answered that question,” etc. At times, this disrespectful behavior impacts the group’s work, such as when Paul speaks for me on an issue where they don’t have correct information or when Paul goes behind my back and gives instructions to someone I’m assigned to work with that are in tension with what I’m telling that person. In these situations, I have been telling Paul that this is frustrating/unacceptable/etc., admittedly sometimes with annoyance. Paul often responds that they are confused and don’t understand what they did. Sometimes, I also get long rants with expletives, personal remarks, and accusations. It’s inappropriate behavior, even if I am communicating very unclearly, which is what Paul believes is the problem. Paul has recently been pursuing a diagnosis of autism, and it feels to me that they are weaponizing this new diagnosis, which is not fair to other autistic people in our organization, who don’t behave this way.
There’s no “boss” or HR in this situation, but there are a few people we both trust and who have the cultural capital to potentially help us try to move toward a better way of working together. One of them has heard us each out and feels that we need to make a written agreement about how we will interact so that Paul has clear rules to follow. My concern is that I have repeatedly communicated what isn’t acceptable to me, and Paul hasn’t changed their behavior. I’m struggling to figure out how I would write up a list of rules that Paul would respect. Moreover, this really isn’t an issue just between Paul and me; it’s more about Paul’s behavior in general. Other options include me leaving the group, which is possible though not ideal, and another option is that I continue to just hold boundaries with Paul (trying to always communicate extremely clearly!), which is also not ideal but is something I could do. Paul is certainly not the first person I’ve worked with who has treated me in a way I experience as sexist! I know Paul doesn’t want either of these options; they want a list of rules. I’m wondering what guidance you would offer on how to proceed. Is it worth trying the written agreement to see if it helps? What would I even put in such a list? What options haven’t I considered?
I wrote back and asked, “Does anyone have the authority to fire Paul or otherwise remove him from the group?” The answer:
As far as I know, there is no process in our org for removing someone for this level of problematic behavior.
The biggest problem here is that there’s no mechanism for removing someone who’s driven off multiple people.
You’ve already lost two people because of Paul. Is the organization willing to continue losing people just to avoid getting rid of him?
I think that’s the bigger issue, even though it’s not the one you’re writing to me about. As a leader in the organization, you have the standing to bring that to the rest of the leadership and argue that the org needs to be willing to remove volunteers who won’t follow a basic code of conduct or are otherwise disruptive or harmful to the organization.
As for the idea of a written list of rules for Paul … eh. You’ve already told him what needs to change — he needs to stop interrupting, criticizing, scolding, and dismissing other members of the group — and he claims not to understand. I’m skeptical that putting it in writing is going to suddenly open his eyes. But sure, if this idea of a written list is being pushed by others in your leadership, you might as well write up the list so that you can say you’ve done it and there’s no question that Paul has been clearly told what needs to change. (And if autism is in play, the list could genuinely be helpful.) In addition to covering the interrupting, criticizing, scolding, and dismissing other members of the group, you should also include that Paul can’t send ranting emails with expletives and personal insults.
But I think you also need to be thinking about what’s going to happen if/when he continues to be an ass despite receiving the list. Right now your org can’t figure out how to resolve this because it’s denying itself an essential tool in running a healthy organization (the willingness to part ways with someone) and this is unlikely to be solved until that changes.
To be clear, that doesn’t even mean you’ll definitely need to cut Paul loose (although I suspect you will). Sometimes just making it clear that’s an option on the table will get the person to change their behavior. Either way, though, being willing to do that is an absolutely crucial part of running an effective organization that people won’t keep fleeing from.
no subject
How Paul reacts is part of the key. There's two types of "confused and don’t understand what they did", broadly speaking. One kind is 'neurospicy fish in neurotypical waters' confused, where they don't know the rule in advance but can adjust once explicitly told. (random made-up example "Our meetings begin with ten minutes of chitchat, partly to allow for late arrivals and partly to break the ice; please don't launch immediately into business" may not be inherently obvious but once stated, the rule can be followed.) The other type is just stonewalling. It might be somewhat genuine, if the reasoning behind the behavior (e.g. women are irrelevant) is so fundamental to their worldview that they aren't consciously aware of it, but regardless, they don't want to change. They want to sidetrack into other issues ("I can't be sexist because I'm not attached to masculinity" or "maybe I'm autistic"), they want examples they can nitpick away, they want to bluff.
Neurospicy wiring isn't the issue -- being unwilling or unable to change harmful behavior is.
no subject
no subject
Thank you a lot for doublechecking my reaction, as it were.
no subject
Like, "wait ten minutes before launching into business" is a pretty reasonable thing that most people can understand, and anyone who is willing to try can probably do pretty immediately. "You look cranky and impatient during the first ten minutes, you need to participate in the socializing, and don't be grumpy or awkward about it! Or nonverbally imply that you'd rather get down to business!" can be a much bigger ask, and some people have had the first one suddenly turn into the second one, while everybody is pretending it's still the first one, enough times that they immediately respond badly to the first one too.
LW has an honestly pretty socially complex ask; "completely change your interaction style including following a new set of rules about conversational turn-taking" is a lot even for most neurotypical people. It's reasonable, valid, and probably necessary! But not simple or easy actually.
(It was also notable to me that LW focuses on sexism in Paul's interactions but doesn't actually mention how they interact with amab and/or male-passing people; usually in these kinds of letters LW is careful to point out that there's an obvious difference but this one didn't and given my experience of volunteer social justice groups, I wonder if LW's actually seen Paul interact with any cis white men that don't outrank them. It can be wildly frustrating, and very difficult to correct, to be repeatedly told you're treating a certain group differently when in fact you're treating everybody the same, it's just that certain groups of people read "rude as fuck" differently, but it's hard to figure that out when you're still struggling with "but what you're describing isn't what I'm doing so I don't know what you want changed!" This seems to come up pretty often with nd trans/gnc people too, who may not have a good handle on social gender dynamics even before they start to constantly shift position in them.)
Like, for the record, Paul just sounds like an asshole, and the problems LW and boss are putting front and center are almost a red herring compared to the long rants full of expletives and insults, going behind people's backs, and choosing to speak for the group on topics they aren't qualified or asked to speak on. Those are all very concrete things that they need to be told they should stop immediately and if they can't they need to leave the group, and if it's really disability related, work with some kind of therapist on it before returning to leadership roles. But if they can't even manage that, "work on your conversational turn-taking with afab people" probably *is* well beyond their level to comprehend.