RANT: Colleagues/Employees misspelling company/customer names in "formal" places

As I live life at the same pace as everyone else on Earth, I am slowly learning that I am quite different from most people if not at the very least average people. But, I am still not sure why.

Here is one that is to me seem to be a very small and simple example that I think most or at least average people should already be able to do.

Spelling customer company names correctly seems simple enough. We have a database that has the correct spelling. Many documents have the correct spelling. Yet, somehow, in our main reporting system, it is spelled differently.

Please bear with me as I think I am partially lenient (maybe not super lenient) of things that may cause such misspellings. I am likely guilty of such practices in commonplaces like an instant message or maybe even an informal email. 

I can understand a quick message here or there.

I can understand in live scenarios like a presentation or in training.

I can also understand if a customer name is somewhat complicated.

Today's straw that broke the camel back was the name Macy's. Ok, so I can understand maybe Macys being used instead of Macy's because the apostrophe causes issues in certain scenarios. In our database, it has references to Macy's, Macys, and MCY. Yet in our customer facing and main reporting system, this person spelled it Macy. This variant is not used anywhere else. And this bothers me.

What also bothers me is that there is also a folder name customers. And this same person did not use that folder, so now we have two folders Customers/Macys (spelled correctly) and just Macy with no customer.

Now because of this, other users are starting to use the parent folder for other customers. So later, there is now TheGAP, while we already have a folder Customers/GAP. In the database and everywhere, it is just referenced as GAP.

The worst part is that I cannot fix any of this because it is published and officially used besides that I have no control in this area. It just eats at me each time I see it.

And so many questions come up like who reviewed this change? Why is there no checks? Why is no one else complaining? And so the world goes on anyways and here I am wasting time on what I guess is trivial to everyone else.

I have also seen things in stored procedure names, application names, requirement documents, tickets, etc. This is not because English is their primary language or US is not the culture they grew up in or due to age. If anything, English-only speaking, born and raised in the US seem to be the worst at this than other people.

I guess this is insignificant BUT WHY?

Like reviewing code and I saw someone put in an extra case to remove an asterisk to fix a function that used regular expressions to filter out special characters. Then there were other lines to remove other symbols that look like the regex was not filtering. In about a minute, I saw they used a dash in the regex string which is obvious the original developer thought it meant to keep dash but regex uses dash as a shortcut for everything in between the prior and next character. For example, a-z is all lower-case characters in the English alphabet. So )-=, means all characters between ) and = in the ascii table. The asterisk is in that range, thus why it was kept.

This means that multiple developers and multiple reviewers over the span of multiple years kept overlooking this "bug" in this function. HOW?? WHY??

And of course, someone used this function in such a way that it requires this "bug" because it needs that special character in that range because someone decided to also use it on a date string. So now we have a function called "RemoveSpecialCharacters" that removes only a select characters and the white-list filter is hard-coded in that function. Why not at least pass a parameter of exceptions? WHY?

Now my brain just simplifies all these issues into just a bundle of HOWs and WHYs with no relevant information as if repeating it will just numb my brain into caring about the original problem.

Work Life: When is it too many minor mistakes to be a major problem?

When is it too many minor mistakes to be a major problem?

It seems there is no amount of minor mistakes where management will be willing to fire someone. Even if the minor errors cause a major error. The only time I have witnessed someone who makes too many minor mistakes (in my opinion) is when they have to cut the entire department or I had a direct involvement with the type of person.

I have already mentioned two people I have been involved with.

So to game the system, it almost seems better to continually make minor mistakes. That way you can also have a defense when you create a major issue. Because there is so much accountability to go around for those who did not catch the minor errors that led to the major issue.

Have I just been working for weak management or leaders?

Work Life: Should Developers Be Fired For Overlooking Small Details or Should the Company Be Happy That We Have Cheap Developers?

• 08/09/18 
• 11/09/18
• 02/22/22
• 06/05/2023
• 2024-06-24

These are the dates in the comment history of a source code. There is no documentation requirements in this team so technically they are doing no wrong. Also these are not consistent across the board. It is also not consistent among the same developer on the same file.

These are the developers we kept. The solution of 20+ years is becoming more and more unmanageable. Maybe because I am seeing it from a low, low point-of-view... and I just do not understand the macro-level of running a division or a company?

Personally, I find the ones that are worse at keeping the immediate local patterns also tend to have more issues from their changes. Unfortunately, this is just my feelings... and as evidenced no one seems to confirm my feelings are ever correct even though my feelings seem to be correct a lot of times after the fact.

Why Can't Good People Make a Good Company?

I think maybe I just do not understand normal people and the sheer number of normal people. I think I may have disillusioned myself in thinking that I am normal. Is this the dilemma of being above-average but not clearly smart enough to be obviously above others? Or am I smart and I just have not found the right person to identify me as smart? Or maybe I am just too smart for my own good... in that, in reality, I am normal and normal people inflate their self-worth?

Am I autistic? Or do I just run against the grain? Am I eccentric? Or maybe fake but really a non-conformist?

If I have such good ideas, why can't I run my own company? Am I blinded by having a steady paycheck? Do I not have what it takes to run a good company in a not-good society? Am I willing to sacrifice my dignity to take on a manipulative personality to sell or even get a better job?

Why I am not good?

I don't know...

Work Life: My git inexperience wasted so much of my time (Understanding EOL)

I was troubleshooting an issue where our developers are not consistent with their formats. For this case, their is an inconsistency to the usage of CRLF or LF. We have developers on both Windows and Mac for a solution built for Windows.

These developers are probably good examples one of the difference between a developer and a software engineer... in my opinion. In that, they just build whatever and however to do what they have been tasked to do. Create another connection string to the core database that has been used for 20+ years? Sure because I didn't know where the original connection string was. Drop an entire new JS library framework for an update to a page title? Sure because it looks cool. Add a parameter to an obviously generic function like ToString(string WhyDoesThisEvenNeedAnotherParameter, string HowDoesASecondParameterEvenMakeSense, string InCaseThatStillMadeSenseHereIsAnother) then expect it to not break everything else? Duh, I wasn't taked to make sure it passed regression test. (Of course, we don't do regression test... suddenly app support is up in flames because everything is burning except for that one new feature.) Yes if you were wondering how it even get that far, that is how "lean" we are because leadership needs to make that extra $20 buy cutting half the developers.

Sorry, story got away from me.

So, I was syncing files and realized a file has historically been CRLF for EOL. Suddenly, I see a wall of red because the file was suddenly LF. At first, I blamed the developer. Then I realized his branch was also CRLF. I tried to play around maybe it was GitHub or maybe Visual Studio. I had to go through backups to see if this happened earlier. This was not happening on all the files.

Then I noticed there was a period of time the git attributes was set to text=auto. Or rather, I was looking up the issue online and found someone reference this. I probably ignored this a couple times as it did not seem relevant. Clearly, I didn't know what this did but did not seem intuitive to me. Eventually I ran out of other options and just looked it up and found it was causing my issue. Somewhere in the history, the text=auto was removed...

So, I spent this whole time... I guess... understanding how different developers develop and what a pain it is to work with people who just don't care about their work. At least now I know what to look for.

Work Life: Someone asks you to do what was already done?

Scenario Part 1:

A manager just asked me to put in the steps to execute a script.

Version 0: "Execute scripts from ticket XXXX"

Version 1: "Execute scripts in ticket XXXX"

In my mind: Was that not originally clear enough? But I am not going to push back because I just pushed back on a minor detail a minute prior because I do not believe they needed to go through me. My process requires many steps. The other process takes one, maybe two. So I just make a change.

Scenario Part 2:

The manage asks me to include a link to the ticket.

Version 1: "Execute scripts in ticket XXXX"

Version 2: "Execute scripts in ticket XXXX (http://domain.tld/XXXX)

In my mind: The ticket id is already there, why need the link. Description doesn't linkify the link either so the user still has to put in the id or full url which IMO the id is way easier. Also the URL can break for example our ticketing system migrated and changed url so that would have broken. But all the ticket id are still the same and would still work.

Scenario Part 3:

The PM pulls all of us into a call to discuss the status. The last few messages in the same group chat created by the PM:

Me: Need rollback scripts from A

Me: Need tester to confirm test from B

Me. Need manager to approve ticket C

(In the call)

PM: What is the status?

Me: (reading off the chat)

PM: Ok. How do we make this move forward?

Me: ???????????????

In my mind: Do you want me to read the list again?

Scenario Part 4:

Everyone is finally synced. So I really wanted to know what the manager thought, so I showed in my screen with the original values to see what he thought.

Manager: Looks good

In my mind: Did you even view the ticket before asking the questions?

I put back the additional info before submitting the ticket. 

Scenario Part 5:

My process took took maybe 5 minutes include the above conversation. At the end of the call...

Everyone: Thanks, you did a great job?

Me: Thank you (for the unneeded job security)

In my mind: For making it harder for everyone? The other process was basically my last step but by a person from a different team who has the authority to execute without all the extra bureaucracy.

I was the only one thanked. And why am I the only one being singled out? The devs did more work. Analyst had to do the testing with no real test environment. 

Work Life: Sign of a Fake Developer > screenshots vs copy/paste

Developer sends a screenshot of the objects that need to be referenced when it be easily copy/pasted forcing the recipient to type out the entire name. Even after many situations where other users have transcribed incorrectly multiple times particularly with unexpected spaces, 1 vs l vs I, 0 vs O, etc, developer continues to take only screenshots.

Developer sends a screenshot of an excel sheet, html table, etc.

Developer sends a screenshot of text on a notepad of the name of the server name or service account or anything that requires the admin to transcribe into another system.

#FakeDevelopersHaveNoEmpathy

Work Life: Venting about venting turned into just venting

I have recently been venting a lot of negativity about the people around me about the people I work with. Unfortunately, sometimes this come through when I am talking to another colleague. I do my best to still end the conversation on a positive note but it has become harder and harder lately.

Work-positive, I do many things to assist or automate so I am not just purely venting and twiddling my thumbs. I created a chat bot, created ticketing processes, demo how requirements can be broken down into smaller workable parts, etc.

These are all things that are not part of my job description. And I think my frustration is because the problems are growing faster than I can fix them... which no matter how much I try to convince myself that is always the case, it does not stay below my threshold to vent.

So maybe as a final venting ground...

I just do not understand why people do not care about their work!!! By "care" I mean wanting to learn more about what they should be doing. Although I complain that they do not know what they are doing, but the kicker is that they do not even motivate themselves to figure it out on their own.

I work with a "scrum master" that doesn't know scrum or agile. The person is not only a scrum master, her title is actually Senior Scrum Master. She complains all the time that she has no time, yet seems to be able to find time to email, comment, message on the exact same thing on my tasks every single day. All these tasks appear in my queue... if she just updates the tickets properly which is just to assign to my and put the status into the backlog state.

I work with people that have practically no consistency at all, not even in misspelling. In a single list that the person produce, I can have 5 different variants on how to name something. All the different objects would be the same type but they manage to give each one a different type on top of all that. 

I keep a nice color-coded spreadsheet to manage all the chaos. I had to share this when I had to be on PTO for an extended period of time. I come back with my spreadsheet missing all sorts of detail. Even one person pasted 5000 cells "by accident" losing all the data.

We have a bottleneck in our process where we do not have enough testers, yet we have been hiring at a high rate at all positions except QA. Now we have an even worse bottleneck...

I work with developers that cannot figure out other applications. I have developers not know who to go to about getting access to different applications. I have sent one manager the link on how to give access to our wiki in practically every single email, yet she keeps sending me an email to add someone. It has been two years, I still get those emails. The steps is basically chat with a bot, click, add the person's email, click wiki, then submit. It is way faster than email anyone.

I work with developers who do not understand access levels. I do not know how many times I have to explain to developers that they are trying to access something in SharePoint so they need to reach out to the author of the artifact. Even after explaining, they would tell me that someone else told them that they need access to the wiki...... yet, they are clicking on the link to the video that is in the wiki. And the video url clearly shows SharePoint and the author's name. There is even a huge button that says "Request Access" when you click the link.

THEN.................... I have to go to the other developer on how to make their video accessible. I have to explain to a DEVELOPER on how to grant access to a video posted on a medium that I have not used before. They basically screen share, then I basically just have them click on educated random things to eventually figure out where to grant access which they always claim, "Oh, I didn't know I can click that". SOOOO disturbing that developers do not know how to "reverse engineer" a simple website built for people with even less understanding.

I shouldn't care about all this. I should just leave it hang. How do they figure things out before? Even though I know the answer because that is why the company is in the state that it is in. I have to say that it is impressive that the business side has been able to make so much money on a product that is almost like building a life-size workable skyscraper with Legos. The new growth is basically trying to convert that into a standard skyscraper not made of Legos by hiring Lego technic experts with my as the guy who brings them the resources advising them that these are not the proper "standard" materials.

Don't care... brain, stop thinking. Just focus on your own task. I am tired of complaining about people. Why cannot I just find someone like myself to help myself?

Totally random thought... maybe the key to getting promoted is be able to find and exploit someone like myself?

Scammish: Employee Engagement Survey Anonymity / Confidentiality and Why I Rather Not

Every year or some companies are twice a year, I have to fill an employee engagement survey. Every time I fill it in I cringe in the information that I have to share. I have been on teams of 5-10.

I Can Tell With Some Uncertainty From the Results

Most bosses will share the results. From the different graphs, I can usually tell which data point is which person. It does require that I am a bit familiar with each person. The easy data points are the people who have issues/problems. But not any issues/problems, these are typically the people who really, really, really want to help the group. Because most people will just lie on the survey.

I Tried But...

I have randomly been extra truthful on the survey. I even filled out the open ended response on extra this to say.

I also have routine meetings with all my bosses. If they did not, I set up the meeting. So they should already know my positions on certain topics. 

Even Ideally... Surveys Are Totally Useless

5+ companies, multiple more bosses (due to reorgs), they all have the same results... nothing. I was part of one group that actually did try harder. Still all "improvements" barely last the one call discussing the results.

Sure the boss may appear excited for the change, animated, hoo rah rah, booya, etc, I have only seen one get past the meeting . That one time lasted maybe half a year (but COVID happened... so........)

Survey Answer Is Always Perfect or Near Perfect With One Exception

If you are not confident in your workplace and you just want to stay in the the status quo, the the answer is ALWAYS, ALWAYS the happy answer. If the question is negative, then the answer is the negative of that negative.

For example, do you hate your work? Answer is fully disagree.

For example, do you love your work? Answer is full agree.

ALWAYS

Why? Because everyone else is. And if you disagree, the boss will know. And most bosses will cut you because it is easier to deal with than dealing with the real problem.

What if you have a good relationship with your boss? Then the answer would naturally be the same anyways.

What if the question is on the corporate level? Still the happy answer.

Exception?

You really hate your job and you really want to tell the company about it. But why would you want to help at the end? The answer is still the same.

Unless you really, really want to screw over your boss and you plan on never leaving. Because that sore spot will forever stay on his employee engagement score. But likely, he'll identify you anyways and get you fired. Then his score will go up the next year and it'll look like he did something............

Sooooo...... for me, if I were to analyze the results... I would expect everyone to either say they are happy or lie that they are happy. Anything less is more of a sign to what I consider my real answer...

REAL ANSWER for company if possible

Hire or promote good managers if you want to improve. Train managers? I have not seen a single manager ever change the way they manage their team. It seems to be a natural soft skill that people either have or don't have. Jerk managers will continue to be jerk managers. They may pretend for a short period of time. I am even tempted to say that even if you incentive the preferred behavior (if that is even possible), I think they still wouldn't change (or change back). Even for mediocre managers, lazy managers, hands-on managers, etc.

Maybe, maybe.... change the incentives on how teams should work. The biggest problem I see even for good managers is that the "real" demand is to deliver quickly with good enough QA that defects can go undetected. "Real" because the demand that managers deal with is usually different than what their managers say the demands are.

For example, lvl2 manager will say the demand is to upgrade the system to the next system but in reality is stressing lvl1 manager to manage current fires which is not related to upgrade. Lvl3 manager is telling lvl2 to modernize but escalating fires to lvl2. This is my dubiousness on modifying the incentives.

Work Life: Dealing with Anti-Change Hypocrites

In almost all large corporations, there always seem to be someone that is against any sort of change in practice. I add "in practice" because none of them will openly admit that they are against change. One of the reasons is that they are usually the loudest person about how horrible things are now and that is why they are always behind.

And it is this last point that I believe is the crux of all their "lies" and hypocrisies. They are able to use it as a crutch to continue business as usual because to them this is "retirement work". They only say there so many other factors that are impacting their "low performance".

The reason it is difficult to deal with these people especially with management that do not understand the nuance of human relationships. Things like "lies", "retirement work", and "low performance" are difficult to identify. Interestingly, these people seem to be the most productive in the most obvious of metrics, appearing to be the busiest body.

But there are many red flags that can be used to identify the situation. One of these is "this is how we have always done it" but may not be in these words. This can also be "impossible to regression test", "the new process does cannot handle of these exceptions", or "not enough resources to manage current process and new process". They appear busy because they are just doing repetitive tasks that appear complicate. 

A harder flag to identify is that they avoid building a solution that will address the majority of the problems. They are always the first against standards or general processes. Whenever someone new joins and asks why can't we build a simple solution, that person will face a long list of reasons why it cannot be.

Which leads to another flag. If someone actually sat down to identify these claims, one would find most of these are anecdotal. And in most cases, the simpler solution would even address the claim. One of the favorites used is that they do not have enough resources. The reason they do not have resources is because they do not use standard. To them, additional resources would be needed but management would not give them more resources.

One reason is because they have already thrown them more resources in hopes to address the problem. But because the process does not scale, the problems continue to grow. By the time management realizes this, they are not able to appropriate additional resources. And for some reason in majority of the cases, managers are not able to just say no to incoming requests and prioritize the work so that they can reduce the workload.

Summary

There is little that can be done to change the behavior of the anti-change coworker (usually a manager). These people are difficult to deal with and takes risk to manage.

The easiest method is open the eyes of the next level manager. But it cannot be any manager, the manager needs to be someone that is able to enforce the policy change. Most managers are doormats in that they will either collapse from the list of "problems" or all bark with no bite.

Personally, I am fortunate to be in a role that typically has to funnel through me. So I make people's lives "miserable" so that they are encouraged to do the right thing. It is a lot like teaching kids to eat vegetables. And to be fully honest, this is only because I care to make things better. Otherwise, it is super easy for me to coast through my job too.

Work Life: Problems with Documenting

Everywhere I worked, everyone always complain about documentation. Yet, no one has ever maintained documentation. This is over a span of 20 years and 8 companies. Since my third job, I have always documented and encouraged documentation. Here I am thinking back to all my experiences on why I have essentially failed in promoting this eco-system.

Each career move has allowed me to somewhat restart and improve on my processes. Essentially since the initial attempt, I have always attempted to centralize and share via the shared document. This eventually turned towards Atlassian Confluence as my preferential choice as it has been available at large to corporate-sized employers. Prior to this was a shared drive or Microsoft SharePoint. If I had to share information that I thought would be re-used, I created an artifact, stored it, then pointed the requestor to that artifact.

Everyone loved it and found it useful. But no one has ever adopted it. If I had time, I would also include answers to my questions then respond back with a link for their future use. I am also of curious mind so I also learn more to understand what other groups do or working on. I also listen in on calls and document if I am not an active participant. None of these ever improved even if all my managers "loved" the work that I did. They would suggest to others but never enforced it. I would get praises during townhalls (I hate these sections in townhalls) and my raises and bonuses would always include this as part of my excellence.

But I don't do it for praise. I just want to solve a corporate problem that "seems" to be beneficial for everyone, wins for everyone, and something that seems to be universally seen as a problem. So why am I not able to "solve" the problem?

Change is Hard?

This is almost an obstacle for anything in a company. It is too generic, also never was a satisfying answer to any changes. Let's say the change is to increase everyone's salary, then everyone will find a way to change even in ways that are not expected. To me there is some level of incentives but obviously this is not met with documentation.

Is the problem that "I" do the work for "some else" to have an easier job that I used to struggle with? Are people jealous that others have an advantage over their "potential" replacements? I suppose this is a legitimate reason. To me the view should be that this their chance to leave the position to do something greater because if we all keep learning, replacements will never really keep up. Does this mean that people are "lazy" of continual learning? Are there more lazy learners who fear their own job security?

I think that is the most likely scenario. If money typically drive people and raises/promotions get more money, why is this a problem? I think the most likely case here is that their is poor sets of expectations for promotions or corrupted sets of values.

Incentives?

I think in the past, I have thought incorrectly about incentives. One of my problems I saw with promotions was that managers were never able to release their old work. I have thought that documentation would have helped in these situations.

But as I work with more and more people, I feel generally people fear the most is job security. The second with promotions is self-image. What works for most people is consolidating information to yourself.

The reason for this is because by hoarding information, the person is artificially increasing its own asset value to the company. If the person leaves, then that set of information is also gone. If documentation exists, then it is easier to release the person. This I have seen at most of the companies I have worked for. There is always a "star" employee that everyone goes to for information. What is also kind of amazing is that this "star" employee is always a major jerk to junior people (some are unbiased to seniority). Usually with 20+ years of specific experience to that department.

First, the culture appears to incentivize info hoarding as they keep praising this person. Also you need to be an "ass" about hoarding the information: don't join calls, don't respond to emails, don't respond to messages... unless it has been escalating 2-3 levels. Even directors are afraid of upsetting these employees.

This makes sense to me now because besides that information, I would not keep these people. I also sensed these people tend to no like me much because I typically found a way to get the information I needed. At this point in my career, I was also decently versed on protecting myself from petty games where they try to throw me under the bus. One of the most common way was that I didn't ask or set up a meeting except that I make sure that I always send an email or something that is recorded to show that I have done what they claim I did not do. Usually after one or two times that I stand up for myself, they will stop but I see them do it to others.

Is it guaranteed that there is one of these people exists in large groups? I think this exists because most of these successful groups do start off small which could not hire more talented people. More talented people can readily replace less talented. This may be the only method for an original employee to stay relevant. 

Self-preservation

I think I am starting to sense that my endeavor to change corporate culture that has existed for multiple decades are nearly impossible if the original employees are still in the group. It does seem that groups with high overall turnover seems to adopt a bit better.

So intentionally or not, it seems most people naturally do not document but wishes others do so. In all my experiences, everyone who stays seem to be those that have all the internal knowledge of the system. They are also all very attached to the "old" ways most likely because new things make their their knowledge more likely to be obsolete.

Work Life: How to report a coworker who is meeting way below expectations?

Simple answer is do not. The farther they are from you on the corporate tree, the bigger the no.

I have been a part of a few colleagues' end to the team. I hated doing it but one directly impacted my work (transferred), the other was requested upon me (fired), one that did absolutely no work (transferred), etc.

There is no good to snitch on someone especially if the boss does not bring it up. Boss bringing it up may be the only opening but even then tread very carefully. If you are unsure, then do not say anything negative. Feel free to omit positive but at worst stay neutral.

First Example

He was hired because he was a friend of a director. His career was a very non-technical role put into a role that required multiple technical roles. I did my job and trained him. I repeated multiple things to him. Things got ugly when he started "throwing me under the bus" by saying that I didn't train him.

Unfortunate for him, I had really good reputation by the time he joined so most of his attempts were met with a lot of question marks. I have worked with difficult colleagues before, so I started to use these strategies.

Keep records. I made sure that I always emailed everything to him. Even if it was a call, I will send a summary of the call, the decisions made, and the information he needed. Anytime he said he didn't know or said I didn't tell him, I would just respond to the email to remind him the information that I supposedly did not send. Near the end, I had resent the same email 5 - 10 times.

I basically did all his work. If he did work, I had to redo all of it and have to go through many people angry that that have to explain the work again. I can even tell him (when we are alone together) exactly where it was in his notebook.

Eventually, I just had enough of it. 1 month of training; 2 months of "re-training"; 2 months of supervising his work and correcting everything; 1 month of basically just doing his work. I basically just wrote to my boss and asked her to give me his work directly and exclude him completely. I explained I would save the company time and money if he just stayed home.

Her solution was that she will take over supervisory role of his work. I do not know what happened, but he was eventually transferred to another group. My boss was eventually let go couple months later although this may not be related to the guy. She was not very well-liked to begin with. I was the only one to send her off.

Second Example

The second person can talk the talk. He sounds very impressive after working with the company for a year after graduating. I suspect he was not well liked by the previous group and sent to us packaged like it was a great deal.

We were in the same line of work. I did not have to do the initial training or the second training. Supposedly he was not getting it correct and I was tasked to train him again. His work is full of errors: grammatical, data, format, etc. Each time I would point it out, he would thank me because he is such a perfectionist and cannot stand those things. There are quite a few things that I do not point out mostly due to the sheer amount of time that I spend just correcting the fundamental parts of his work.

I did not have a good impression of him. My boss kept assigning me to help with his work. I eventually documented all the time spent on his work. At this job, I was able to do my assignments within 3-5 days. It would take me 6-10 days to "help" him complete his.

This time, I spoke with my boss and said that I was no longer any help to him. I was spending more time fixing his work than just doing the work myself. My boss also took over primary supervisory role. Eventually, he was fired.

At some point he was put on probation then a second probation.

Sadly, he was not even fired for terribly poor quality work but he was snoring during one of the executive meetings.

Third Example

I had to train someone who used to do the same work. I later found out she used to work for our team before I was on the team. I also learned she was transferred out because no one wanted to work for her.

Yet somehow I had to train everything from the start. I would give her tasks with expected dead lines. She did not do them.

I simplified the tasks. One of these task would just be to create a template (copy, paste, then rename a file) which takes 5 - 10 minutes. I'll check the next day and it will still not be done. When I question her, she would say she will work on it. On the second day, she will say that she did not know how to do it. I would show her on that call, then explain she can do the rest. Third day, still nothing done and she does not even join the meeting. No show on fourth and fifth day. I reported the missed meetings to my boss because I was not sure she was on PTO which he said she was not. After a week, she has not even completed the first task and was not joining meetings.

At this point, the assignment is overdue so I just do the work. I give her a new assignment with the same tasks. This time I just do the work in a separate folder because I already expect her not to do the work. After another week of no progress, I just submitted my portion.

I have only reported to my boss that she has not shown up for most of her status meetings, does not even respond to emails or instant message, and has ignored most other things. I tell him just give me the assignment because I am just wasting time checking on her. I was also a contractor and I get paid the extra hours anyways.

Eventually, I learned that she was transferred. After another two years, I still saw her on the active directory.

Suggestion to Manager

In most cases, no one will ever jeopardize their reputation to snitch on someone else. I have talked to many colleagues who have complained about others. I can guarantee you that none of them will say a peep to a manager or HR. Anyone that snitches already have pretty bad personality, and no one wants to be lumped with them even if it is with good intentions.

I just happen to be confident in my work. I also make sure that I already have a good standing reputation. I am still very careful on what I share and who it is shared to. Everyone else have always just quit and did something else. Then you are just left with the crappy people who also just moved up a spot on the seniority ladder. 

Why do I suggest others to just say no? Look how hard it is to fire someone. I cannot imagine providing any more evidence on how useless someone can be. #1 and #3 provided absolutely zero value. #2 at least did something even if it was still zero value. If anything I can argue that they provided negative value because I have to spend more time to correct the work. My team even got back an already known low-performing person.

Unfortunately, I have no way to prove that I am a pretty optimistic and patient person. I have given them lots of passes and liberties before I started my list on them. Technically, a list of CYA (or CMA in my case). Because no matter what, you always need to watch out for yourself. You never know when someone will push you under the bus. (Also doubles as a good source for yearly reviews)

If Any Action

If you do need to do something, my recommendation is to phrase the request as a detriment to your performance. I used to be able to do 20 tasks in a week; now I can only do 10 tasks a week due to addressing other tasks like training or assisting others. Or, I used to be able to complete a task in 2 weeks; now it takes me 4 weeks to complete. Or, I have been putting in overtime to cover these additional tasks that are not mine; I've worked overtime everyday for two weeks.

If manager does not do anything, make sure to track the changes. If management has issue with your decreased performance later, you need this list to back yourself up. If you get below expected year-end evaluation, this can prove that you have gone beyond expectations. If you leave work incomplete, this will also help back you up.

If management still has issue, do not invest more time in that company. Start looking elsewhere. 

In more cases than not, having a detailed list will make you appear to have more leverage compared to someone that does not (assuming both people are on somewhat same level). I prefer to be more passive aggressive. Not to be a bad or evil person, but also as my "hidden" test for the manager if they understand some level of relationship intricacies. If they just want only hard evidence and facts, then I do not believe they are very fit managers. They clearly will not understand a good number of people.

RANT: I hate poor-quality developers who appear to be ace developers- Consistency

The first problem I have with poor-quality developers is how inconsistent they are with many aspects of development. I especially do not like the ones that self-claim to be "good" developers because they delude themselves that they are not susceptible to bad habits by pretending they are one-off issues not to be addressed.

The latest list of request consisted of something like the follow:

WebAPI

webApi

WEBapi

Those are the names of the databases a list of objects I was supposed to copy. It is in a nice table, and it is to me so clearly obvious they are not in the same format. One can argue that this makes no difference to the database, but this attitude to inconsistency is everywhere in this persons work: email, documentation, chats, etc. Anecdotally, I feel there is a strong correlation to poor consistency with the quality of developers. If they cannot even be consistent with a simple list, I question their consistency with more important details.

And this is evidenced by other changes that I have to promote. I promoted an object that had the word "complited" in it. AND it passed code review. This could be a "fat finger" problem but there are times when the spelling is completely off where I already feel sorry for the other developer that has to troubleshoot this. They also have deal with names that developer had mistaken a number 1 with lower case l or a capital I, or when there is a mysterious space in a name where the agreed pattern is to not have any spaces. I also have had requests to objects that do not exist because they used the wrong database name or server on a regular basis. The list goes on and on: missing documentations, missing dates, wrong ticket number, even numbered lists that have missing numbers, etc.

I can understand mistakes here and there, but when does it become a real problem. In most cases, I can figure it out but it is taxing on the amount of time it takes me to research (or time to rant).

What triggered me to write this post is that these types of developers tend to be the first to claim their #1 pet-peeve is inconsistencies or they have an OCD to be perfectionists or they rarely ever make these mistakes. From my own experience, I can tell you that the best developers I have worked with never had to make these claims. Even developers of average skills would not make this claim. Somehow the worst offenders ALWAYS make this claim and out of no where.

I rarely ever have to ask if this bothers them. I just point it out and suddenly they will say one of the three statements above. It takes all my efforts to not have my jaw hit the floor. Not only that, but they have never improved in this area.

But how does this really translate to their code quality. They go through a lot of defects. Their code is consistently returned. They always claim poor quality of requirements yet other developers seem to have much fewer code returned to them.

Are you detail-oriented?

This has made me question the interview question "are you detail-oriented?" I always answer this with a lot of concern and I do intentionally do that in my interviews. The reason is I feel that anyone that says they are detail-oriented with a lot of confidence are the above type of people. In some sense, I feel this is almost a trick question for both the interviewer and the interviewee. Could there be people who are hyper detail-oriented? Yes, but that will show in their answers to other questions.

There does seem to be an aura of detail-oriented wanabes versus actual people who are. To me, the difference in the way they approach problems. Wanabes tend to give lots of information that seems relevant but does not quite answer the question. They are the people I would go into a meeting for a simple question, spend an hour, people feel it was productive, but then seem like they didn't get an answer to their question.

On the other hand, real detail-oriented people gives you what seems like a very short answer. Sometimes it even includes information that seems irrelevant. But then once you start working on it, you realize that you do need that information.

I answer the question that I am not very detail-oriented but that I seem to be more consistent than most of my peers. I even explain why I answer hesitantly. I also explain that there is a level of detail that is warranted for different cases. If we are discussing the big picture, we do not want to be inundated with details questions that is not ready to be answered. If it was a life-critical component, I am quite capable to be consistent most of the time. I will admit that I am not super consistent, but will explain that I have methods to improve on my accuracies.

I am not detail-oriented at all with these blogs. Most of the time, I just type as I think of things to talk about. I rarely go back and proofread my blogs unless it is too obvious that I need to move something to another part of the blog. I also "proof" if someone leaves a comment only because I cannot remember what I wrote and need to reference... and I have found quite a few grammatical and spelling errors.

Work Life: If you need help, pause to listen (also works for normal life)

A close person had asked what sorts of food to make and was clearly asking me for assistance. 

"What food should I make?"

"There isn't much ingredients."

"It is hard to decide."

"Give me a list of things I can make."

And on and on and on...

I even made some attempts to provide some feedback. I tried using handle signal for a pause or a few seconds. Eventually even trying to interrupt. But she just kept on going for 30+ minutes, even repeating questions/statements.

She is definitely not the first person that I interacted with like that. Even at work there are people who just keep on asking, repeating the same question, talking a mile-a-minute, etc. These people at least you can kind of ignore or build a method to get out.

The worst are people who have an open Q&A to a presentation. They use half the time to present, then uses the second half asking for questions, to be open about questions, etc. There would be people with raised hands or try to get attention, but the presenter just keeps on going.

My Advice

1. Be comfortable with very uncomfortable silence

2. Pauses in your speech. 

Why?

1. Some people do not interrupt out of respect. It is more polite to hear the whole thing before responding.

2. Who's helping who? If you are asking for help, it is not my problem that you run out of time.

3. Respect runs both ways. If you do not respect my time, then I am less likely to interrupt you to help you.

(Bonus Skill) Learn to Empathize and Summarize

I understand that most people are unable to understand this so I will give a pass to some people (but know that I will still be irritated inside).

Empathy is your ability to put yourself in someone else's situation and have an interest to help. You do not need to fully understand especially the emotional part. In this case of seeking help, you need to understand who your audience is. Do they know your situation? Do they know the details? Do they know enough to help solve your problem? The counter-balance to this is to also know when too much information is too much information. The easiest is to listen if they have questions. Part of this is also to understand the person is also trying to come up with a solution within a limited period of time that you have spent significantly more time on.

I have no answer how to practice empathy. One of the common tests to see if someone has empathy is by just listening tell you their day. People with low empathy will commonly just jump from story to story with no context. No identifiers to understand that "he" in story 1 is different from "he" in story 2. And when it becomes clearer that story 2 is in place and I speak up, the speaker actually gets more irritated, frustrated, and/or angry.

Maybe I am not a great listener, but an empathetic person should change their speech patterns to their audience. That is essentially what empathy is. I have had little luck in explaining empathy to less-empathetic people. When I explain empathy to highly-empathetic people, I am not really explaining empathy. I am mostly teaching them other points-of-views that they haven't considered, then they go to town with it.

But on the most basic level, if you are asking someone to solve a problem... they need to have all the ingredients to solve the problem. If you lack an ingredient, then they will either say it is unsolvable or they will assume certain values or defaults (whether it is correct or not because maybe it may still help).

On the other hand, do not overwhelm them with information. So learn to summarize. Give as much ingredients as possible that is needed but not too much more than needed.

All this is just to get information from a person one time with little past negative history. To get continued help is another level of empathy. How is this experience going to help or detract some from help you in the future? Some people may help you this time but if the experience is poor, will they help in the future. In summary, empathy is not just a moment but also multi-level. Fortunately if you are starting to understand empathy, some empathetic people will understand and give some leeway. This is probably one of the few things that I believe hard-work and time will help anyone's quest to be more empathetic.

Thought Experiment: Why more good than evil, good over evil, good triumphs evil

The age-old question of whether we are born good, evil, or neutral is one that we ask ourselves some time in our lives as we attempt to figure out who we are and understand others. Depending on what recently occurred, I have swung through each of the options in the past.

For a long while, I have believed that the question is not really a valid question because it was too muddled by what each term meant. Somethings are good to some, evil to others, and lastly the rest do not care at all. But because of all the superhero movies that have been coming out for the last decade, this has gotten me to thinking why does "good" triumph over "evil".

And in my limited reality, I feel that people are good. There is a lot evil events in the world, but when compared to the mass of the people, it really is the smaller percentage. But even then, I think people want to be good so there are even fewer people who are evil to be evil.

I think this is evolutionary because it is easier to survive by being good even though sometimes we believe that good people finish last, but rather good people stay alive whether it is physical, financial, or social. It is easier to be good because we do not have to put as much effort in being helpful to others than being evil.

To be evil takes a lot of energy and time. On the basic level of just pure evil, people seamlessly group together to fight a common enemy. This leaves the evil people who need to fit in with the good people.

These people then need to understand two worlds, one is the lie that they live and the other is hiding their true intent. This also scales down to smaller evil deeds like corruption, self-promotion, or even white-lies.

Even just braving a smile but dislike the person underneath takes more energy than just ignoring the person. If we could tell the difference, we would prefer to be with the person who is more forgiving.

I believe that simply by having good intent is natural because it is fundamental to our ability to survive because we do not waste as much energy as evil people. This would also explain why many of the unsuspecting evil people are highly intelligent. I get tired just remembering who doesn't like to hang out or work with other people. Many times, I believe that I only seem intelligent because I do not waste a lot of time with rumors where I tried to keep up but I became physically drained. I really do feel dumber as I figure things out because it always seem others seem to pick up on social cues and little tidbits so much easier than I do.

So although I have had some evil thoughts, I am probably too stupid to be any good at it. Unfortunately, this does not cover where my good intentions may clash with someone else's good intention. For example, the US presidential election nominee selections.

Well, it kind of does but not as cleanly defined as the prior examples. Although I believe people are well-intentioned, this area points out how lazy we can be. If we believe someone else will do something or if we do not understand which option is correct, we do nothing. On the extreme end, we have the capacity to become silent witnesses where we do not call the police even though a major crime occurred in a somewhat public area believing that someone else would have called it in. On a lesser end, we do not report misbehavior especially in a work-place because we are afraid of our social status of being a tattle-tale.

So the majority of people agree on good-intentions when life and death is the ultimate result, but when it comes to evil activities that are not life and death then our good-intentions become fuzzy even when we know what is right and wrong. If we add in evil activities where people believe they won't be caught or punished, this becomes even more dicey (like speeding when driving).

Then what is good people? Those who have more good-intentions than evil ones? Those who only have good intentions? Ultimately, I think the general population are misguided well-intentioned people. Our conflict is primarily on short-term gains versus long-term gains. Basically, when is good-enough, enough?

Autism Spectrum vs me

I surely do relate to some of the key items of the low-end of the autism spectrum especially when I look back into my past.

I am told that I didn't start speaking till I was four. I do not make eye contact. There are stories that I did not look up at the teacher till second grade. Supposedly, it was such a big moment the first time that I did. The teacher personally stopped by our home to report the "happy" news. I was always very quiet till 15-16.

I probably don't have it, but reading some of the articles help me understand myself in a way where others fail to satisfy my questions. I believe I do a very good job of masking normal behavior.

I believe the biggest factor to my drive to understand to be normal is my insatiable need to understand the world. I ask a lot of questions to that point where people would put their hands up and walk away. Even if I agree with their point of view, I will play devil's advocate to better understand. So this is my drive to go against some of my natural tendencies.

I still struggle with some things like eye contact. When I really get into a conversation, I stop looking... at anything. I couldn't tell the person's facial expression, other conversations, time, place, etc. I get so hyper-focused that I do not sense anything else. Nowadays, I have to conscientiously remember to look at the face. I will naturally look at the mouth at best, but usually will just stare into space. I am really not sure where I am looking at once I am engrossed in a conversation.

The more background noise, the less I am able to understand people. I am terrible when there is noise. Not that it bothers me, but I cannot "hear" what people are saying. Sometimes I wonder if I am deaf but I hear sounds. And I can hear very minute sounds that others cannot hear. But when there any sort of sound, my ability to hear what people are saying drops exponentially while others can hear perfectly fine. I have had little to explain this phenomenon, but the article by Burgess has the best example thus far. On her "spectrum", there is a category for sensory filter. I believe this is where I am rather weak on.

I also struggle with expressing what I feel. I think the problem for me is that I really do not feel anything, especially things to an extreme. I do not really hate, nor do I really love. Things just is. People's fascination with art and music is lost on me. I still go to museums, and I just fail to see what other's see. There is no particular music that I love, none that I hate. I am unable to really mean it when I say that I totally love this song, music, artist, etc. I like the beat, the rhythm, the lyrics, but I approach it more analytically. For me, it is amazing how well they can maintain a beat, how they can change the beat but keep the sound coherent or lyrics that uses limited words that rhyme yet still send a message. Although I do not have extremes, I do have preferences but the reasons seem to still be consistent. If the lyrics is repeated too often (bores me) or distracts me from whatever I am focusing on, then I do dislike the song. But I have not heard anything where I would want to ever consider ripping my ears off. I don't even plug my ears or even change the radio station.

To me bad music is like food that has a bad after-taste. There are food that tastes good and there is food that does not taste good. And that pretty much is the summary of my taste palate. There is very few foods that I dislike. Even fewer where I refuse to eat. But there is nothing I wouldn't try for free, and I would hate to waste money by paying an exorbitant amount of money for something that tastes good. Yes, it tastes better but is it worth paying 2x to 5x the food and labor? I am perfectly fine with eating unsalted boiled chicken. It does not taste great, but not worth $10 for an alternative.

I still consider myself a loner. Ironically, I was told that I was like a social butterfly at the office. This is due to the fact that I go around and talk to people (about work or their social problems). But for me, this activity is extremely exhausting. But I "force" myself because I want to understand. And I learned that people do not share as much information when I do not share some information.

I do get frustrated. This is usually when I am unable to understand more about the situation. But I think the blame really goes to people who do not make very coherent logical steps. Uusually there is still some reason they do things that are more self-centered, for their big ego, etc. I just do not understand why they think that way. I get most frustrated with people who have no interest in self-improvement except to manipulate others for their own life improvements.

From what I have analyzed about people, I find that I have a very different approach to the world. And my biggest worry about this thought is that everyone seem to feel that they are different (like how everyone thinks they are right or good). So how do I actually gauge how different I am?

http://themighty.com/2016/05/rebecca-burgess-comic-redesigns-the-autism-spectrum/

Leadership Pitfalls: Don't eat/take your subordinate's treats/food/etc

Do you have people at the office that have bowls of snacks or candies to share for the office?

It's a trap

This is not an intentional trap. This is not the intentions of the givers (unless it's me). But you will have people like me who witness those who take things.

The trap is not a single incident infraction. The problem is when you abuse the (unspoken) system... the peer judgment of others. The main problem starts when you take a larger portion of the goods.

Lack of Compassion

The goods are not free. Out of the goodness of the giver, they are sharing to help those around them. But when the taker starts to feel entitled, this just hits the wrong nerve in me.

For example, there is a lady who always keep a variety of sweets in her area. Several people enjoy the treats. But each day after she's gone, a group of people takes a noticeable amount of sweets from her desk. Because I am usually one of the last people out of the office, I notice this group.

Although she does not mind, this action by that group is just wrong to me. I have also heard the same from others. Some of them have also started to use more racial biases because of this.

So not only does this make it appear poorly for those who take too much, but it also also reflects poorly on whatever prejudicial group the observer makes.

Unfairness

I am one that occasionally leave sweets/snacks on my desk to share. As a person who has bought food to share and even though I am not poor, these foods are not cheap. 

Because I am further back in the office, I do not get as many visitors. I do regularly get a director who is very friendly with a colleague who sits next to me.

Although I am ok with those who take a treat each time they visit, his visits started to irk me when he said (somewhat playfully) that I need to restock my treats (when I haven't restocked for a while). Not only restock but a specific request of candy that I brought in once. I don't mind when someone at least at the same corporate level as me does this because they never do. Yes, that sounds odd but there is an unspoken understanding that these are treats, not entitlements.

I also know this director eats other's treats. And there are similar complaints from those people as I have in my mind. We are the bottom of the hierarchy. A director is 2-3 levels above us, so easily makes twice as much as us (which means he has the potential to save way more than double). Over 5 years, he has never given anything back... not even a thank you. 

If it were just me, I would just chalk it up to my bad luck. But for others, the very least he can do is do something nice (and something unselfish) in return. Even if we have poor directors (I work for a fortune 10 company so extremely unlikely), he could at the very least "promote" them in some ways. I do not even mean a professional promotion. A simple this is a great person, kind person, or if I even have to drudge the bottom of the barrel.... a very simple thank you. Or even, even lower.... at least do not criticize (like not enough plates, utensils, etc). 

Optics

Ultimately, there is nothing technically wrong with taking or even accepting treats. But because the visual is very subjective, this is just not worth the optics that this behavior projects for a manager or executive.

If anything, I even give back to those that share their kindness even if I do not take any or much. This does not have to be food or materials. I have assisted or aided in other ways, although food is the simplest way. 

People see, people judge, but they won't share their thoughts especially if you are in a leadership position. In my opinion, those who cannot even balance simple human compassion do not deserve my respect for there position. And if his peers cannot at least recognize this, I also have lowered respect for all of leadership.

Reference

Personal experience

Work Life: Working with a Difficult Person (Take 6 of infinite)

No matter where I work or which client's I go to, there always seem to be a difficult person we have to deal with. There are all sorts of difficult people, so I do not have a simple method on how to deal with each different kind. What I have learned is that covering their short-comings by doing their work is not a good long-term solution. Instead, I focused on how I can change myself more effectively.

The more I covered for other people, the more management thinks that things are going well even if I have reported such pain-points. This has two outcomes. They do not hire more people thus leaving the rest of us stressed. With smaller companies, this slowed growth. The other is that they continue to hire other poor options which compounds the original problem. The pain-point is even more difficult when your boss is also a difficult person because a lot of time is spent to explain things on their behalf.

At some point, I realized that I have put myself into the cruel cycle. So, I started to refocus on my responsibilities and started to delegate work properly. Unfortunately, I had to learn to put up with management complaints that things are not getting done, starting saying no, and leaving things tasks alone not within my responsibilities. Because of these changes, I began to be manage my work better and manage my bosses better.

One key change was the way I kept my notes. My notes began to be more prioritized with tasks and amount of time spent on these tasks. The reason is because I had to start saying no to requests. I do this by explaining the tasks I had to do. Most times the requester will realize that their request is not a high priority. With bosses, they may re-prioritize my work. The other is to have my list of responsibilities at hand. Although odd why my boss wouldn't know what those are, the list has been very useful. I had to be prepared to explain why I should not be a candidate for the task. By having the list available, I am prepared if someone tries to reword what they are. Lastly, I also keep a list of tasks that were not part of my responsibilities. This list is when managers from other departments or higher up the ladder complains about the lack of attention. This helps my bosses have the needed information to explain why certain tasks are delayed. In most cases, this information will also discover process gaps with other groups.

Sadly, this does not quite get things done quickly nor does this change difficult people. This change focuses on redirecting attention to other people (hopefully, the proper resources). I have tried many other strategies but none seems to impact anyone. I have found that difficult people cannot be easily removed from the team because there is a reason they are there so is not worth pursuing like tracking what they do or do not do.

Although these practices are a bit political, it is still important to connect with other good people. This helps in many levels in that they will also be more willing to assist me [I was surprised on how many "processes" have been created just to avoid certain people]. Good employees are hard to come by but people recognize them. They may be future people you want to hire when you have such opportunity or need recommendations.
On top of all that, discretion is still required. Because I trust my bosses and I have always wanted to be a good proponent to the team, I am not afraid to push-back and make my statements. But I still keep a contingency for each time I push-back. I am always prepared to be looking for new work. My current team is the best thus far in my career, so there may be some leniency in the extra work. If my employment was important to me, I may do more of the extra work. If I had more control or a clear vision that my extra work will help the group grow, I will also do extra work. Until then, I will do what I am hired to do because it is currently the best for the team with an eye out for any changes in management.

Related Links:
Difficult person who doesn't live up to their potential - Star Trek (TNG) - Hollow Pursuits
- Started watching TNG. This episode inspired this post.

Life: Learning from the negative (Take 2 of infinite)

"Be thankful for the difficult people in your life, for they have shown you exactly who you do not want to be."

I was taught that you could always learn something from anyone. I was constantly reminded in my youth that no matter who I was around, I should learn the good things from good people while learning to avoid bad things from bad people. Of course a little generalized, but the point made it through to me. So stumbling across this quote one day just reminded me the many advises my mother gave me that I did not really take to heart in my more immature days.

I cannot say that I was fortunate or unfortunate. Compared to the friends I have made, I say that that I may have been more unfortunate; but compared to most of the world, I am quite fortunate. Of course, I have jumped between these two things quite often without a satisfactory answer. One day after conversing with a friend about his inability to identify his passion in life, I thought on some of the things I said that helped me enjoy life. I found that there really is no need to identify if my past was fortunate or not. I learned from my past and the only waste is if I didn't take anything positive or negative out of the experience.

There is no reason for me to compare my past life with others. We have all walked different paths. Paths that no other person can fully understand. I look at my friends, each with their own goals or lack of goals. Friends with a harsher life who enjoy life; friends with an easier life who are lost; friends with harsher life living in self pity; friends with a good life still continuing the good life. The only commonality is that the ones doing "well" are those who have embraced their past. Albeit, the last part may be more difficult for some than others. But you cannot change the past, so you cannot just be stuck in self pity.

I digress from a couple points I wanted to make. To the parents, no matter how much I complained about my mother repeating herself and mocking her by repeating the same thing but with a different attitude, I was still listening. Do not give up on keeping your stance. You do not need to answer why or how. The constant nagging, reminder, and repetition are what drove me to understand the full weight of such values when something in myself just clicks with realization that truth behind such values. Someday, I imagine I will also be repeating these same things to an immature version of myself and wonder how my mother ever had the energy to put up with me.

The other point that I constantly wonder about is if I can learn the empathy and kindness that I have without such experiences with "difficult" people. Compared to most people that I am around, I have probably more than average share. I also notice that people in similar situations also tend to have higher empathy. Can someone have the same level of empathy without such "difficult" people? Do these "difficult" people come from the lack of others like themselves? Can I teach them empathy without the use of another difficult person?