How to grow professional relationships
tej.as
tej.as
It’s always a bit strange when you only hear from people once every few years, just as they need an intro or career advice or whatever- the beginning of those conversations is usually a bit of sheepish catch-up on what happened after you last spoke with them. Similarly, there have been times when I have felt like a dope after realizing that I failed to follow up myself after a call, and am again reaching out for another reason.
However, when you follow up with someone as simple as “Thanks for connecting me with so and so, we had a great chat” or “I tried that thing you suggested, here’s how it worked out”, you build mutual trust and enthusiasm for a successful outcome to the conversation you had. It’s a genuine and thoughtful way to grow your relationship.
"uh, it isn't my birthday"
"you've said that to me every day for a week, please stop"
"stay away from me".
Did you, or didn't you ??
This might out me as a psycopath, however, cut to the f'ing chase. If it is a transactional conversation don't insult my intelligence by pretending that it isn't. Obvioulsy this can create a problem as I tend towards "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
If something is within my means and the person hasn't made it onto my shit list I love to help out, it's what makes getting up in the morning worth while. Unfortunately we are all far more powerless than anyone can imagine and actually being able to do more than point people in the right direction, offer advice or just talk to someone is incredibly rare.
The fact that most people enjoy exactly the opposite of what I do was revolutionary to me, really explained a lot, and allowed me to navigate social interactions better.
Having said this, I don't see the ROI on pleasing people I don't like. I try to gauge whether someone has the same vibe as I do, and if that's not the case, then I'll be polite but that's it.
Second, less common but still common mismatch: different emotional responses. If an event happens and I react in way A while the other person reacts in way B, either of us needs to suppress the emotional reaction, which is exhausting. I'm not willing to do that, unless genuineness is not expected by definition (at work, at family reunion).
The catchup, as mundane and obvious as it is, at least signals to the person that you see some value in them and value your relationship, even if it's transactional in nature. Does it need to go on for paragraphs or multiple emails back and forth? Absolutely not, but having some lead in makes it less like you're only concerned about what you can get from the person.
Would you rather a waiter just come up to your table and say "Order!?" or have a little bit of pleasantries before asking what you'd like to eat. There's no more transactional relationship than a diner and a waiter, but most people would prefer the latter.
Some people have a very hard time adapting or accepting different cultural expectations, and their world is necessarily narrowed. It always makes sense logically, "Why should I have to play these games to show that I mean well, people should judge me by my more meaningful actions" but another way of looking at it is it's not worth it to them to make the microscopic effort to communicate willingness. If they're not willing to make even that little effort to make communication easier, what else are they unwilling to do?
Psychopathy is not about choosing not to feel empathy - it's a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by persistent deficits in emotional responsiveness and empathic concern for others (meaning they can't). -"opathy" is usually a disorder outside of one's control.
This is why I said psychopathy "can be" the selective inhibition of empathy, because by some definitions that's what it is. Other definitions like yours essentially define it as what I call sociopathy (simply being without empathy in the first place). I don't claim my definition to be the only definition because psychopathy can sort of mean either thing depending on who you ask, but I use my definition just for the sake of argument.
They want to be appreciated, acknowledged, and seen above almost everything else. If you call up an old acquaintance and start the conversation by asking if they know of any job openings, you will be seen as someone who only values what they can DO for you, instead of who are they ARE to you. Nobody likes being a tool, they like being a friend, and like feeling that they are doing something good for someone that likes them for who they are.
Now, we ALL know that the call out of the blue to catch up often has an ulterior motive but it's polite (and necessary) to at least PRETEND that the ask is not the main reason you called.
But if you called, and you are not even slightly interested in catching up, that just makes you a rude ass.
We're social animals, and when people overtly signal that they're disinterested in the existing paradigm, they're communicating that they're going to be exhausting to interact with, since you're going to have to explain and justify every individual thing you want out of them that they don't already understand, and they'll never just go along with things for the sake of others.
This I feel is unfortunately counter to the design of humankind, where we are—as you said—social animals and the only way to change for the better—at a species level—is to change together.
I'm talking about "open handed" issues where people tend to debate and negotiate: preferences, not convictions—if 3/4 friends want to go get a sandwich, but 1/4 insists on either salad or "go without me", this can be taxing on the relationship—especially if they also are usually open to sandwiches and have no strong conviction against it.
It's not that people who clean up after camping have to drag all of humanity with them before they can claim to have done some good - it's that the sandwich shop example doesn't have anything to do with actual human values.
Continuing to make it practical, one thing that has served me well was to maintain a list of friends (I still do this) and text them at least once every day just following up or checking in. Some like it, some don't. For those that don't, that's their choice. The topics around abandoning lost causes kind of apply there: not that these people are lost causes, but daily checkins are. That's okay, to each their own. :)
I only see people writing this here in HN. Is it some expression from old that has been revived or is it some activist thing?
Dictionaries say "an invite" has been used as a noun for centuries.
[0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/can-you-use-invite-a...
[1]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/68937/invite-vs-...
Examples: build, patch, commit, deploy, sync, mock, update, upgrade, deliverable, standup, kickoff, resolve, retry. There are probably many more.
Also there's a stylistic difference between coining something new and necessary e.g. 'mock','patch', vs. creating something faddish and unnecessary e.g. 'an ask'.
It doesn’t need to be an onerous amount of effort, but reaching out to people to shoot the shit once even a year is often enough to maintain the relationship for professional networks at least.
In software we have an unfortunate amount of people who don’t value social connections at all so we end up with a large tranche of people who can’t get past the “but why would I talk to them without a specific reason?” argument and then lament why all of their relationships end up transactional, or even better lament why no one will help them specifically because all their relationships are transactional and they aren’t offering anything of value
I'm someone who very highly values social connections, but finds it a little bit awkward to just "shoot the shit". I really enjoy interacting with people based on shared experiences, of whatever type -- but as you say, many people really enjoy interactions which are lower-key.
You're not wrong, but interacting with others on their terms rather than yours can be a bit challenging at times, and easy to get wrong.
Yup, you get a lot of people complaining about the pointlessness of small talk, but the reality is that small talk is social glue. People want to work with people they like, and you only get that by having some level of casual ease with one another. Being 100% business all the time is the opposite of casual ease.
Only with some people. Trying to do smalltalk with me, will not make me your friend. I simply hate smalltalk. (Talking unimportant things for the sake of talking)
But there are a million of other interesting non buisness things I am willing to talk about at length. I also like to joke around and be silly. But that requires a connection, you won't get with me while talking about the weather. And I know many people are like me, most just adopted to "like" smalltalk, as they think this is the way it has to be.
It can be as simple as “hey have you seen {shared colleague} recently?” Or “Hey man, you get into any new hobbies recently?”, or “I’ve been dabbling in {x} tech, have you done anything like it or are could recommend an alternative based on {personal information you got from collaborating with this person}”
The main point in making is that you need to continue in performing these relationship maintaining activities _before_ you need said persons help.
For the extremely oblivious who haven’t researched any game theory but know some comp sci, imagine that relationships with all other humans needed regular mechanical Turk transactions with yourself or they will be identified as high risk groups that shouldn’t be afforded any leeway.
Well, but I am quite good in determining if another person is just trying to be (fake) friendly, so they can get my help later and I am not interested in that and smalltalk won't create that bond for me. I am interested in genuine connections.
So if someone asks this question "Hey man, you get into any new hobbies recently" and is actually interested in my response - then this is simply not smalltalk anymore by my definition. And I gladly answer. And maybe form a bond. And of course help each other later.
But if I feel, it is just a mechanical and calculated approach to bond with me, well, no thank you. But I also help people without doing smalltalk if I can.
Can I presume that this is the burner account of some particular billionaire if you are that good at recognizing the social situations?
I'm pretty certain GP isn't as good as he thinks he is. Literally no one can tell the difference between me making smalltalk because I think I may need you later and me making smalltalk because I am genuinely interested in you.
The reason I say this is because even I cannot tell tell the difference, because I tend to find something interesting in everyone. I've made smalltalk with literal ditch-diggers, and two weeks later with a billionaire, and the conversations were both pretty much the same.
Then you are acting natural. I mean cold calculated attempts to bond to benefit. And nice empty small talk as an art to get there. This is the small talk I mean and don't like. Talking about small things in a fun way I enjoy
also rather mundane conversation can be fun if done in the right manner. this video talks more on the right manner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRG-YubP1rw
======================
I think you might be using a different definition of "smalltalk" than most people.
Me, for example ... I don't talk about weather or sport. I won't pretend to be interested in 'em either.
And yet, I have no problem engaging even strangers for 30m or more at a time. I just pick something in context and mention it.
For example, if you can strike up, and then continue, a conversation with the person next to you in line for boarding a flight, then you're golden. I once lead with "That's a damn small plane[1]. I hit my head the first time I went into one of those." to a tall gentleman behind me in the line, and had a 30m conversation with someone who turned out to be a very interesting litigator.
I mean, if you're in a specific place, at a specific time, and cannot find anything contextual to use as a conversation starter, then I don't think that the problem is that the whole world is too dumb[2] for your level of "smalltalk" topics.
When you "connect", you're not looking to marry the person, just find something you both have in common. If you run into too many situations where you have absolutely nothing in common with people around you, you are the problem, not the people around you.
[1] Embraer 139, or something. Can't remember now.
2] I dunno how else to interpret "talking for the sake of talking".
"then I don't think that the problem is that the whole world is too dumb[2] for your level of "smalltalk" topics."
I also don't think other people are too dumb to have conversation with me.
But I do value silence more, than well "talking for the sake of talking".
Meaning 2 people thinking they need to do smalltalk, but both people are not that interested in the other person. Casual blabla to pass the time. Or artificial attempts to "network". (Won't work like this) I can smile about such awkward conversations, but not take part in it.
Otherwise I can make deep connections very fast with completely random strangers and talk about anything. If I feel like it.
I'm not playing a strong Devil's Advocate for this thread, my comments are explanations and not excuses - I just don't like people, and I would need to be convinced that relationships are worth having, before I cared about how to have them. If I wanted lots of platonic business relationships I would be interested in how to have them.
It's certainly an indication that I should maintain better relationships... but it's vastly easier to keep them minimal.
I hear people now: "but opportunities!". Can't miss what you already have.
To know I have a friend (of a certain class, at least) I have to be ready to effectively double the size of my life. It's already been pretty overwhelming. Different types of resilience involved or being developed
Back on topic: I find it's less about the people and more... everything in between. The act of sorting; rarely worth the effort. Manufacturing productive business relationships has been far simpler than personal. Where some find benefit joining them... I actually enjoy space between.
Why is a transactional relationship considered bad? And why would one consider a transactional relationship as something not offering value?
I don't like small talk, but if I like the person I would try to help them anyway with their transactional request, with the expectation that I might have a similar transactional request at some point in the future. If the relationship is equally transactional in both directions, I don't see a problem with that.
I can invite a colleague at another university, whom I might consider an old friend even though I haven't spoken to them in ages -- to come give a talk in my department. Very often they'll agree to come; we'll roll out the red carpet for them, and they and I will have a wonderful time.
That said, this is far from universal in academia, and many academics do enjoy small talk and prefer to keep in touch regularly.
I don't think any sort of relationship can be called "bad" or "good" in the abstract -- but a lot of people consider transactional relationships "bad" in the sense that they don't like them. And, if you want to build relationships with people, often you have to do it on their terms, or at least try to meet them halfway.
You're giving the person an opportunity in this case. You're also rolling out the red carpet to make it good for them.
Usually when people talk about transactional relationships, it means they only call on you when they need something from you. For example, calling someone up every 5 years when you need a referral or you want them to solve a problem for you.
I was commenting on people who’s behavior creates transactional relationships when they wanted something with a deeper interpersonal relationships, and people whose behavior causes transactional relationships but also have nothing of value to make the transaction worth it.
If a billionaire calls me up once every five years for a favor but pays me a couple of million for it, I’ll take the call any day.
If someone I met at college a few times calls me up once every few years when they got laid off and only are talking to me for a reference but are never in a position to to help me, what reason do I have to help them other than a feeling of charity?
I guess I’m saying you shouldn’t treat others as impersonal machines to be manipulated unless you are ok with that same behavior being turned back on yourself.
This! However if you'll allow me—I think it's worth saying we shouldn’t treat others as impersonal machines to be manipulated _at all_ because we're never really okay with that same behavior being given back to us because of millenia of social, communal evolution.
That’s an argument I think I agree with but am not ready to defend tonight.
It’s much easier to defend the point that if you treat me solely as a resource to be exploited then you shouldn’t be surprised if others or myself treat you solely as a resource to be exploited
I have absolutely gotten similar requests from students through my Alumni organization and have accepted them in the past. I don't see a problem here.
Here is a direct quote from a request that I have accepted in the past(redacted a little): "Hi <name>, I am a MS in CS student at <university> graduating in spring '25 and I saw your profile on <university>'s alumni page. I'm pursuing a career in software engineering and I'm wondering if we can connect and chat sometime about your career and the culture at <company>."
Transactional relationships are fine if that's the deal up front. I have a lot of transactional relationships with freelancers, contractors, and repair people. I call them up needing something and I'm going to pay them for it. The transaction.
I dislike transactional relationships when they're disguised as personal connections or friendships. People who pretend to want to get to know you, but they really just want to be able to call on you when they need something from you. Often when you call on them for something they're nowhere to be found.
Transactional relationships can be fine if both parties are on with it, but you actually need to bring something of value.
If you and I have a fully transactional relationship, then why would I do anything for you if you won’t/can’t do anything for me?
What's the old saying "A friend in need, is a friend, indeed."?
I like to have personal relationships, as opposed to corporate ones.
Funny story: During the 1990s, my direct boss was a fairly low-key Japanese man. I really liked him. He was a marketing type, so we didn't really have a technical basis for our relationship. He was a decent chap, and I happily followed his orders. In return, he gave me a great deal of agency.
After he returned to Japan, we'd run into each other, from time to time, and it was always a warm, effusive greeting.
Years later, he was the Chairman of the Board of the corporation. I never leveraged the relationship, but my team was always treated well, at our level. We were a small technical team, and it would have been inappropriate to focus on us too much. I had very little ambition to go much higher up the corporate food chain, so all was fine. Once, he made a visit to our office (the US branch). It was a really big deal, and people were snapping to attention all over the building.
He dropped by my tiny little office, to say hi. It was really amusing, to see the puzzled expressions on all the corporate bigwigs in his entourage.
I have another theory that this creates a lot of rebound anger at the idea of networking. When I was doing mentoring (external to my company, people I didn't work with) I spent a depressing amount of time convincing young engineers that it was a bad idea to burn bridges as they left a company. Way too many people are enamored with the idea of ghosting their job or telling off their coworkers on the way out the door. It takes some convincing to get them to realize that leaving a bad impression on an entire office of people is the fastest way to poison their potential network. Nobody will want to refer you for future jobs if you're a jerk in your final days.
And it sounds phony, since I have never put effort before. If I have to put effort then am I not faking it?
Pretty much every relationship I have "doesn't come natural." I need to put conscious effort into every one.
I have also been involved in an organization, for most of my adult life, that has been instrumental, in helping to force me to have relationships with others, and it has taught me to be a good friend, and has given me good friends.
I'm not really into "transactional" relationships. In many cases, the extent of our relationship is only where we need to work with each other. I don't need to be their buddy, but, in the context of our work, I have found that it helps me to develop a true interest in the other person.
In my experience, I have realized that I'm actually a "people person." I really like people, and have found great utility, in ignoring my prejudices, and actually finding out a lot about the others in my life.
In what way exactly?
It's made me a good coder, but has made my relationships challenging.
It's really a long story, and one that others have told, far better than I can.
My social circles don't have much overlap with, for example, startup founders. Developing personal relationships in my network is not likely to ever benefit my career growth. When people give the advice to "network" to enable my career growth, the people who would be most helpful tend not to have much in common with me, and building relationships with them often means not being true to myself, or even hiding myself.
It isn't enough to simply build relationships or even be good at building relationships. Mostly, one needs to buy goodwill from those people who actually have power to help you.
Then it's best to recognise this early and decide if you want to be true to yourself or if you want to succeed[1].
[1] Depending on your definition of "success", plodding along for 40 years as an IC, contributing your skills to whichever employer and eventually retiring is, for many, "Success" with a capital "S". The people giving the networking advice are using a different definition, which is usually "rising in your career until you are making an impact far larger than an IC could". Not networking with the other rising stars gives you a very low chance of attaining that second definition of success.
It's not like people really get to make that choice and still have a good chance at success. In order to meet any definition of success[1], you need to get hired. And also, if you're in a job that's making you miserable, you once again need to get hired (somewhere else). Networking is the solution to that problem. If you're not someone who can enjoy and/or succeed at networking, your career is at risk. There's not much you can do about that except take a different path.
[1] excluding either "leave the field and succeed somewhere else" or "start your own company"[2]
[2] although starting one's own company without a robust network would probably also be a pretty difficult path
Because, of course it's true not all my friends are just like me. But I don't have to hide who I am from them. I can be completely true to myself and we can disagree about some things but still feel genuine connections.
I consider that qualitatively different from a relationship with a person who would dislike and distrust me unless I hide important facets of my identity/personality.
edit: I see that I made the distinction in my original comment between "not being true" vs "hiding", so I think that's where you jumped in. My fault for leaving that gap open; I hope my position is more clear here.
When we caught up it was nice to see that he was exactly the same, and remembered me and said hello.
So I treat them that way, and that works really well for me.
This seems to be the key part. There's research that shows that relationships are built via multiple, random encounters. Do you think he still would have dropped by your office if you hadn't had these run ins?
We'd usually run into each other at the train station, or in the corridors of the meeting room floor.
Our meets were always quite brief and serendipitous. We were in very different orbits.
My last job was remote with some fantastic people, but as time has passed and the company hasn't done incredibly well, people have scattered (including myself) and I've found it tricky to keep in touch. I'll video chat with some of them once every few months online, but I only have contact with some of them this way.
For others, it feels like the best contact I have is LinkedIn messages. It's usually a quick exchange about how they've been, if they've been up to anything interesting, how the kids are, and how work is - but it's all fairly brief.
Maybe that's fine? Would love to hear if others have better ways to keep in touch with people they enjoyed their time with, but no longer see on a regular basis or live anywhere near.
Maybe ask for their help or opinion on stuff you encounter? Whether it's technical problems, interpersonal stuff, personal musings about the industry... once every few months is probably enough, you don't have to stick to professional topics but that's probably a good way to start!
LinkedIn sucks unless you you restrict yourself to coworkers and IRL friends.
It's a tiny favour, but it also shows you listened to the other person.
From talking to people I know that this experience is not unique to me, this appears to be the norm, may be it's the industry I work in : software development.
Many neurotypicals I see don't have that as their default processing mode. They can do it, but it's not their default.
So what you get is something that you can see with blind people as well: they get better at hearing because they spend much more time with it compared to people that can see (except for musicians, etc.).
Autistic software engineers spend a lot more time with bottom up style thinking (aka being detailed).
I'm on the spectrum too, mostly a non-stereotypical representation.
FWIW I am on the spectrum and am working on precision psychiatry with autistic individuals for my graduate thesis. I don't buy a lot of the stereotypes often peddled about spergy software guys. I find a lot of these people to be quite problematic as coworkers, regardless of how talented they may be.
That is blatantly false.
So I don't need friends that are also colleagues or clients. I already have great friends. I'm a great colleague in every way possible, but I never feel the need to be anything more than that.
For most people work / life balance is already tipping towards work. They want it to be the other way around.
Personally, my apprehension comes from within. It's nothing to do with anything 'outside'. My water level is different, that's all. Most reasonable people feel overbearing - it's on me, not them.
I have been exceedingly lucky so far to have mostly-cooperative environments, perhaps too much. I've been enabled to a few degrees
This reminds me of a story from when I was in business school. We were assigned groups for project work and it was very difficult if not impossible to transfer out of a group. This was by design b/c the point was to teach the students to deal with interpersonal issues and group dynamics.
My friend was in a group with someone we will call Bob. Bob always showed up late, argued about every assignment, would debate for hours about why he couldn't do a task etc.
Eventually, my friend just declared "task bankruptcy" with Bob and gave him no work to do. Why? He realized it was easier to give Bob nothing to do and just redistribute the tasks to the rest of the group versus trying to get Bob to do anything.
I should add, it seems that Bob had some kind of special status with the school as he always showed up late to exams, was able to turn in work late etc.
In closing, a lot of this is reminding me of the "CIA guide to corporate sabotage": https://www.corporate-rebels.com/blog/cia-field-manual
But since you mentioned "tasks", I assume there was actual work beyond chatting up your teammates. So your description is inaccurate.
In order, from most painful to least, in my story:
- Kicking Bob out of the group
- Getting Bob to do a fair share of the work
- Getting Bob to do ANY work
- Having Bob do no work and have everyone else share the load
If you think this transactionally, it may actively hurt your ability to build these relationships.
Simply be nice, be on time, work hard. Treat everyone, boss, colleague or subordinate with high degree of respect. Remember that they are human beings and have families, and respect that. Consider everyone in your company as a member of a team working for a common goal, and presume positive intent. Treat competitors and vendors with respect and act ethically. Just have good manners and empathy, really. This is much better because it works universally, not just in professional relationships.
Love your neighbor as yourself
Still, it's better than anything else I've seen on here in terms of group dynamics. It's a good step in right direction in this fraught world.
ETA: And his tech skills are legit. I've been on the internet since before HTML, and his site is very well done. And his smile does not betray any negativity, so he looks like a legitimately good human being. I'm rarely impressed, but am with his site.
Just before seeing your reply, I had just edited my comment to add my appreciation of your site and visage. In my experience, a person can't fake a smile like yours. People dealing with physical hardship often become close with our Creator, and are then filled with the light of love's radiance.
My blessing has been poverty and learning how to love God and others with all my heart. If that interests you, you can read my comment history and see if you find anything to take inspiration from. Or even contact me.
The Greatest Command(ment) is my family's North Star.
Peace be with you, and may your joy and success be neverending.
I am at your service. We love you.
This is the one I always tell people when I explain how WTF IT can be, I wasn't there for it, but it was retold with the author in the room laughing about it. A female coworker joined and on her first day he went up to her and said "You know you're a slut, right?" And there were tons of stories of him saying the craziest of shit.
That company had serious culture problems, from a CTO who would take his anger out on juniors, demand complete nonsense that made no technical sense, and a revolving door of employees who were leaving because of the CTO or Tejas.
Funny enough, in my personal opinion, Tejas was always well-meaning and rather friendly he just would say the weirdest of shit ever.
I still say the weirdest shit ever, but now more in line with my value of honoring people above all else. I indeed, by the grace of God, have made massive strides in my behavior thanks to friends like Gabe Greenberg from G2i.co (where I worked some time ago) and others.
I also talk about our shared company where we worked together and the toxic environment in this podcast: https://youtu.be/muS-wQP2lV4?si=XIVpuzc6TzsLUvpp&t=852 if you're interested to catch up a bit.
Do you really think of that as “saying the weirdest shit ever”? Most people I know would call it overt sexual harassment.
I’m struggling to understand how you could have thought that was acceptable conduct.
What am I missing?
I remember once I semi-joked "You guys talk about a culture problem in IT, it sounds like you have a Tejas problem" and he generally looked like he felt bad about it.
I also would call that overt sexual harassment and it is totally not OK. Unfortunately, the culture of the organization at the time made it seem OK to where I felt comfortable doing such nonsense. In fact, I have done similar nonsense to get approval from the coworkers there when I otherwise would not have.
I knew it wasn't acceptable in the grand scheme of things, but my team accepting and approving of it (with laughter) was why I did many stupid things earlier in my career.
Insane behavior. I'd have to think there's an underlying medical/mental condition here.
And yes, there are plenty medical and mental conditions there that I've spoken about at length, for example in https://www.youtube.com/live/B8e1r2L7iq8?si=pLccCEZ4nfABcs8z...
The situation where the gatekeepers do let you in but their gatekeeping is not apparent until years later is not mentioned.
Providing excellent work is not mentioned.
Given the political state of software "development", the poster might be on to something, but it is hard to find any concrete advice.
Getting strong pickup artist vibes here. I needed that sort of knowledge too. Married nowadays, would've been single forever probably if I wouldn't have gone through that phase.
It makes sense that you break social interactions down like this. This type of thinking flows from pickup.
It also puts into context that you said stuff like "you know you're a slut" (which you don't remember doing but you mentioned having done similar enough things). It seems you mixed pickup with work. I was a high schooler when I learned it and did it solely outside of high school. So I wouldn't run into these things.